James' World 2

People with leadership responsibilities rated themselves as more willing to take risks than people without those roles. A similar association appeared among chimpanzees, whose higher-ranking group members received higher risk-taking ratings from caregivers. The parallel raises a question about whether an appetite for uncertainty has long influenced who gains social standing.

The human analysis drew on 40,127 participants in Germany’s Socio-Economic Panel, a long-running household study. Together, they contributed 153,430 annual observations between 2015 and 2020. Participants ranged from 18 to 105 years old, and 20,904 were women. Forty-four respondents without a valid risk-preference response were excluded from the outcome models.

Respondents rated their general willingness to take risks on a scale from zero to 10. They also reported whether they currently held a leadership position and provided information about earned income. These were reports of general attitudes and occupational circumstances, rather than observations of particular risky workplace decisions.

Researchers grouped people according to whether they never reported leadership, reported it during some years or held a role throughout all six years. The last group averaged 6.2 on the risk scale, compared with 4.96 among those who never reported leadership. This comparison describes differences between groups, not a change caused by promotion.

The analysis accounted for age and gender when examining the human associations. People with higher average income also reported greater risk tolerance, although income was analyzed separately from leadership status. More than a third of annual income observations were missing. People with no usable income record were grouped with those reporting zero income.

Caregivers assess risk in chimpanzee groups

The chimpanzee sample included 49 animals at Ngamba Island Chimpanzee Sanctuary in Uganda and 37 at Sweetwaters Chimpanzee Sanctuary in Kenya. The animals ranged from two to 40 years old, and 47 were female. They lived in three mixed-sex social groups across the two sanctuaries.

Seventeen caregivers rated the animals’ willingness to take risks. Their experience with the chimpanzees typically extended across many years, providing familiarity with behavior beyond a single encounter. Ratings covered foraging, encounters with snakes, leaving territory, competition for rank, interactions with human strangers and overall risk-taking.

The researchers combined these assessments into risk-preference scores. Ten caregivers also assessed the chimpanzees’ positions within their group hierarchies, using group discussion or pooled individual rankings. Agreement among caregivers was high, supporting consistency in the assessments without making them direct measurements of every animal’s behavior.

Higher-ranking chimpanzees received higher risk-taking ratings, and the pattern appeared across most assessed domains. Willingness to trust strangers was an exception. The distinction suggests that social trust should not automatically be treated as interchangeable with other forms of risk tolerance.

This part of the analysis relied on ratings rather than experimentally altering the risks the animals faced. Such assessments can summarize behavior across many situations, although caregivers’ impressions may influence the scores. High agreement among observers therefore supports reliability without settling every question about what the ratings measure.

Similar patterns do not make the measures identical

The association between status and risk preference appeared stronger among chimpanzees than among humans. Researchers standardized risk scores within each species to express differences relative to each sample. That procedure helps compare statistical patterns, but it does not make the underlying questionnaires or social roles equivalent.

Humans described their own risk preferences, while caregivers described the chimpanzees. Workplace leadership and monthly earnings also differ from dominance rank in an animal group. The authors explicitly treat these measures as species-appropriate proxies for leadership-related social position, rather than identical measures of leadership itself.

Average risk preference was higher among males than females in both samples. However, the models did not detect evidence that the association between leadership-related status and risk preference differed by sex or gender. This distinction concerns the relationship between two measures, not a finding that all groups had the same average attitudes.

The study also did not test whether risk-tolerant individuals made better decisions or led more effectively. Holding a position, influencing group movements and producing good outcomes are different questions. An association with status therefore cannot establish the value of taking a particular risk.

Following people over time leaves causation unresolved

The repeated human observations allowed a closer look at people whose leadership status changed. An exploratory analysis included 1,300 participants who reported both leadership and non-leadership periods. They contributed 6,611 annual observations, enabling comparisons within the same individuals rather than only between different people.

Their reported risk preferences did not clearly shift with leadership status. The estimated association was close to zero, with uncertainty spanning a small negative to a small positive effect. This pattern fits relatively stable individual differences better than a clear increase in general risk tolerance after entering leadership.