Wilde G. J. S. Risk homeostasis theory and traffic accedents: Propositions, deductions and discussion of dissention in recent reactions // Ergonomics, 1988, v. 31.
Wilde G. J. S. New methods for the quantitative assessment of risk taking behaviour // 2nd European congress of psychology. Budapest, 1991, v. 1.
Wilde G. J. S. Target Risk. Toronto, 2001.
Will K. E. et al. Is television a health and safety hazard? A cross-sectional analysis of at-risk behavior on prime-time television // Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2005, v. 35 (1).
Williams C. A. , Heins R. M. Risk Management and Insurance. N-Y., 1985.
Williams E. P. , Clark R. D. Shift toward risk and heterogeneity of groups // Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1971, v. 7.
Williams S. , Zainuba M. , Jackson R. Affective influences on risk perceptions and risk intention // Journal of Managerial Psychology, 2003, v. 18.
Wills T. , DuHamel K. , Vaccaro D. Activity and mood temperament as predictors of adolescent substance use: Test of a self-regulation mediational model // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1995, v. 68.
Wills T. , Vaccaro D. , McNamara G. The role of life events, family support and competence in adolescent substance use: A test of vulnerability and protective factors // American Journal of Community Psychology, 1992, v. 20.
Winokur G. , Clayton P. J. , Reich T . Manic Depressive Illness. St Louis, Mosby, 1969.
Winters K. C. , Bengston P. , Dorr D. , Stinchfield R. Prevalence and risk factors of problem gambling among college students // Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 1998, v. 12.
Witkin H. F. et al. Personality through perception. N.-Y.: Harper, 1954.
Wolfram H. Der Entscheidung-Q-Sort (EQS) als Methode in der Neurosediagnostic // Neurosediagnostik. Berlin, 1974.
Wottawa H. , Gluminski I. Psychologische Theorien fьr Unternehmen. Gцttingen: Hogrefe, 1995.
Xie X. , Wang M. , Xu L. What risk are Chinese people concerned about? // Risk Analysis, 2003, v. 23.
Yales J. F. Risk-taking behaviour. Chichester: John Wiley and sons, 1992.
Yamamoto A. The effects of mass media reports on risk perception and images of victims: an explorative study // Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2004, v. 29.
Yanitsky O. Sustainability and Risk. The Case of Russia // Innovation: The European Journal of Social Sciences, 2000, v. 13 (3).
Zack M. , Poulos K. Amphetamine Primes Motivation to Gamble and Gambling-Related Semantic Networks in Problem Gamblers // Neuropsychopharmacology, 2004, v. 29.
Zajonc R. B. , Wolosin R. J. et al. Individual and group risk-taking in two-choice situation // Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1962, v. 65 (1).
Zajonc R. B. , Wolosin R. J. et al. Group risk-taking in two-choice situation: replication, extension and a model // Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1969, v. 5.
Zajonc R. B. , Wolosin R. J. et al. Social fasiliatation and imitation in group risk-taking // Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1962, v. 65 (1).
Zuckerman M. Biological bases of sensation seeking, impulsivity and anxiety. Hilldale, N-Y.: Erlbaum, 1979.
Zuckerman M. Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal. Hillsdale, N-Y.: Erlbaum, 1979.
Zuckerman M . Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal. Hilldale, N-Y.: Erlbaum, 1983.
Zuckerman M. P-impulsive sensatio seeking and its behavioral, psychophysiological, biochemical correlates
// Neuropsychobiology, 1993, v. 28.
Zuckerman M. Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. Cambridge: Cambridge.
University Press, 1994.
Zuckerman M. Are you a risk-tacker? // Psychology Today, 2000, v. 33.
Zuckerman M. , Kuhlman D. M. Personality and risk-taking: common biological factors // Journal of Personality, 2000, v. 65.
<p>Приложение</p><p>1. Методики выявления склонности к риску</p>Методика «Готовность к риску» (RSK) Шуберта
Методика направлена на выявление оценки своей смелости, готовности к риску.
Инструкция. Оцените степень готовности совершить действия, о которых вас спрашивают. При ответе на каждый из 25 вопросов поставьте соответствующий балл по следующей схеме:
2 – полностью согласен, безусловное «да»;
1 – скорее «да», чем «нет»;
О – ни «да», ни «нет»;
– 1 – скорее «нет», чем «да»,
– 2 – совершенно не согласен, безусловное «нет».
Вопросы теста (некоторые вопросы оригинального текста заменены на сходные по смыслу, но более отвечающие специфике жизни в России):
