There is an asymmetry between risk-seeking behavior—i.e., choices that progressively increase the probability of incurring an undesired outcome—and risk-avoiding behavior—i.e., choices that progressively reduce the probability of incurring an undesired outcome. While most experimental risk elicitation tasks focus on the former, many real-world decisions involve the latter, where individuals start from a high-payoff position and can reduce risk exposure only by giving up sure opportunities. In this study, we develop a novel Bomb risk elicitation task design to test differences in risk taking when individuals are daring versus when they are retreating. The design builds on the standard bomb risk framework while keeping the underlying probability–payoff structure constant and varying only the direction of the action that determines risk exposure. This allows us to isolate the behavioral effect of the risk-taking process itself, independently of incentives. We study this asymmetry both in the gain and in the loss domain, implementing a 2X2 design that crosses the direction of risk taking (daring versus retreating) with payoff framing (gains versus losses). Risk exposure is measured as the implied probability of incurring a catastrophic outcome. Preliminary evidence suggests that retreating may induce higher risk exposure than daring, and that this difference is more pronounced in the loss domain.