Risk communication and investment decisions: An experimental analysis

Authors

  • Irene Maria Buso CESIEG, LUISS Guido Carli; Università Ca’ Foscari di Venezia
  • Daniela Di Cagno LUISS Guido Carli
  • Vittorio Larocca CESIEG, LUISS Guido Carli
  • Lorenzo Spadoni Università di Cassino e del Lazio meridionale

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.13133/2037-3651/17735

Keywords:

Risk attitudes, risk representation, laboratory experiment

Abstract

Can the way in which risky investments are presented affect the decisions of investors? This paper shows the results of an experiment in which participants face a sequence of portfolio decisions consisting in allocating an endowment between a risk-free and a risky asset presented in different “visual” modes: histogram, tree and with words. The data collected point out that the adopted representation mode for the risky asset affects the choices of participants. In particular, participants exhibit a lower risk aversion when the risky asset is presented in a more familiar (preferred) mode.

References

Alempaki D., Starmer C. e Tufano F. (2019), “On the priming of risk preferences: The role of fear and general affect”, Journal of Economic Psychology, 75 (Parte A, dicembre), art. 102137.

Buso I.M., Di Cagno D., Ferrari L., Larocca V., Lorè L., Marazzi F., Panaccione L. e Spadoni L. (2021), “Lab-like findings from online experiments”, Journal of Economics Science Association, 7, pp. 184-193.

Chen D., Schonger, M., e Wickens, C. (2016): “oTree-An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments”, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 9 (C), pp. 88-97.

Crosetto P. e Filippin A. (2016), “A theoretical and experimental appraisal of four risk elicitation methods”, Experimental Economics, 19 (3), pp. 613-641.

Di Salvatore A., Franceschi F., Neri A. e Zanichelli F. (2018), “Measuring the financial literacy of the adult population: the experience of Banca d’Italia”, Bank of Italy Occasional Paper, n. 435, Roma: Banca d’Italia.

Greiner B. (2015), “Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE”, Journal of the Economic Science Association, 1 (1), pp. 114-125.

Holt C.A. e Laury S.K. (2002), “Risk aversion and incentive effects”, American Economic Review, 92 (5), pp. 1644-1655.

Holzmeister F. e Stefan M. (2021), “The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: across-methods (in)consistency?” Experimental Economics, 24 (2), pp. 593-616.

Kahneman D. e Tversky A. (1979), “Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk”, Econometrica, 47 (2), pp. 263-291.

Linciano N., Lucarelli C., Gentile M. e Soccorso P. (2018), “How financial information disclosure affects risk perception. Evidence from Italian investors’ behaviour”, The European Journal of Finance, 24 (15), pp. 1311-1332.

Loomes G. e Pogrebna G. (2014), “Measuring Individual risk attitudes when preferences are imprecise”, Economic Journal, 124 (576), pp. 569-593.

Lusardi A. e Mitchell O.S. (2009), “Financial literacy: evidence and implications for financial education”, Trends and issues, maggio, New York: TIAA-CREF Institute.

Lusardi A. (2019), “Financial literacy and the need for financial education: evidence and implications”, Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, 155, art. n. 1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41937-019-0027-5.

MiFID (2004), Markets in financial instruments directive (2004/39/EC).

MiFID II (2014), Markets in financial instruments directive (2014/65/EU).

Thaler R. e Sunstein C.R. (2009), Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Tversky A. e Kahneman D. (1974), “Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases”, Science, 185 (4157), pp. 1124-1131.

Tversky A. e Kahneman D. (1986), “The framing of decisions and the evaluation of prospects”, Studies in logic and the foundations of mathematics, 114, pp. 503-520.

Vlaev I., Chater N. e Stewart N. (2009), “Dimensionality of risk perception: factors affecting consumer understanding and evaluation of financial risk”, Journal of Behavioral Finance, 10 (3), pp. 158-181.

Wang J. e Yuan H. (2011), “Factors affecting contractors’ risk attitudes in construction projects: case study from China”, International Journal of Project Management, 29 (2), pp. 209-219.

Weber B.J. e Chapman G.B. (2005), “Playing for peanuts: why is risk seeking more common for low-stakes gambles?”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97 (1), pp. 31-46.

Zhou W. e Hey J. (2018), “Context matters”, Experimental Economics, 21 (4), pp. 723-756.

Published

2022-04-30

Issue

Section

Articoli