Psychology, Financial Decision Making, and Financial Crises Flashcards
1
Q
Economic Risk Taking:
- different kinds
- risk events
- mediators
A
Distinction betwen
- instrumental risk taking (e.g. investing) - oriented towards future benefits
- and stimulating risk taking (e.g. gambling) - more present time oriented
definition of risk-events:
- probability of decision outcome (expected-utility theories)
- e.g. lottery (probablility of wnning is known)
- uncertainty if no quantitive value can be expressed
- e.g. investing (probability is unknown)
- risk taking is domain specific (financial risk taking is completely different for health risk taking)
- mediators are risk perception, risk attitude (e.g. assymetric risk attitude), and risk propensity, also personality and situational factors
2
Q
Risk Perception
- concept
- factors
A
- people are more influenced by perceived risk than by objective risk
- concept: risk perception is a subjective construct influenced by how an event is interpreted
- factors:
- degree of situational uncertainty,
- controllability of that uncertainty,
-
confidence in these previous estimates
- outcome of genuine uncertainty, lack of knowledge and seriousness of possible consequences
- risk perception is a cognitive assessment… also influenced by affects (fear, regret and optimism), it is susceptible to cognitive biases (e.g. overconfidence)
3
Q
Cognitive biases: overconfidence
- consequences
A
- believing that their knowledge is more accurate than it is
- think their abilities are above average
- illusion of control
- excessive optimism
- with experience: tendency to focus on successes instead o situational factors, rely on routines, won’t process all relevant informations
- result: underestimate actual risks
4
Q
Risk Propensity
- definition
- measurements
- risk avoiders v. risk seekers
A
- general behavioural tendency to take or avoid risk
- closely related to actual risk taking behaviour
- determined by perceived risk, risk attitude, and price consciuousness
- Kogan and Wallach developed the Choice Dilemma Questionnaire (CDQ) now used to assess risk propensity as well
- Weber et al. (2002) developed a domain specific risk propensity scale (distinguishes investing and gambling)
- Meertens and Lion (2008) devloped a risk propensity scale to distinguish risk takers and risk avoiders (not domain specific)
- risk avoiders are more likely to attend to negative outcomes and overestimate probalility of losses relative to gains
- they require a higher probability of gains to tolerate possibility of losses
- similar distinction as in regulatory focus theory between prevention and promotion focus (striving for positive outcomes)
- risk propensity is relatively stable over time unless a pattern of risk taking is proven unsuccessful (negative outcomes lead to change)
5
Q
Sociodemographic factors on risk taking
A
- women are less risk taking than men
- tend to own less risky assets than single men
- reduce assets with more children
- parenthood seems to reduce risk taking
- older people take less risk
- lack of financial knowledge or motivation to gain this knowledge is a big factor
- tendency to buyfinancial products that do not meet their financial needs or budgets
- half or variance for economic risk taking seems to be genetic
6
Q
Personality factors on risk taking:
- sensation seeking,
- extraversion
- impulsivity,
- opennnes to experience
- conscientiousness
- anxiety
- neuroticism
A
- sensation seeking (need to arouse central nervous system) - tend to take more and larger risks
- extraversion is positively asscoiated with sensation seeking adn young people are more likely to be extraverted which may explain why young people take more risks
- impulsive individuals take more risks because they do not analyze all choice alternatives
- want to decide quickly to enjoy the benefits of the chosen alternative, avoid effort of trading off alternatives, and opportunity costs of processing more information
- impulsivity is higher order personlity trait of openness to experience and conscientiousnes (higher in openness and lower in conscientiousness)
- openness is related to a need for arousal thus higher risk propensity
- conscientiousness is related to processing more information and focusing on the most certain alternative
- impulsivity i also related to time preference
- present-time preference is related to spending moneay immediately instead of saving for the future
- future time preference (low-time preference) are willing to delay gratification, prefer to save
- trait anxiety, closest relation with risk taking
- bias to processing threatening information (biased risk perception)
- those with low extraversion and high trait anxiety have a risk avoiding propensity
7
Q
Confidence
- situational factors
A
- optimism v. pessimism
- in time of financial crises peope are less confident and more pessimistic about the future
- subsequently, they avoid risky decisions with great consequences (buying houses, cars, save more take less credits, prefer to pay back loans)
- in economic upswing people are more optimistic
- just the opposite
- optimism may also be stable (dispositional optimism)
- strong relation with entrepreneurship (entrepreneurs are also more risk tolerant)
- more risk seeking
8
Q
Summary Nr. 1:
A
- risk taking is mediated by risk perception, risk attitude, and risk propensity
- people high in sensation seeking and openness to experience take more and higher risks
- people high in conscientiousness, anxiety, and neuroticism take fewer
- women, parents and older people also take less risks
- overconfidence and optimism can lead people to take more risks with sometimes diasastrous consequences
- crises may be more conseqquential for those who tke more risks
9
Q
What are the three biases in Financial Decision Making that will be discussed here?
A
- difference between subjective and objective value of money
- framing of outcomes as gains or losses (assymetric risk attitudes)
- loss aversion
10
Q
What is known about the subjective value of money?
A
- Bernoullie stated that money has a subjective value that differs from its nominal value
- that the subjective value of money increaes with its nominal value according to a concave logarithmic function
- Galanter (1990) showed a similar function was true for losses, even though Kahneman and Tversky (1992) showed that for losses its twice as steep
- concave function referred to as diminishing sensitivity similar to the relation of sound pressure to loudness
- Chater and Brown (2006) state that a monetary value may be assessed via comparison in long term memory
- so, the greater the values are, the less frequently they are encountered
- Linville and Fischer (1991) think its because people have limited cognitive and affective resources
- if a certain amount is needed to purchase something specific, its subjective value becomes temporarily higher than it snominal one (so it breaks with the concave form)
- e.g. the break-even effects… a lost aomount of money becomes very attractve to win back
11
Q
How is the monetary value learned and what can the Euro-Experience tell us about it?
A
- it is conjected that money’s value is linked to its purchasig power in markets
- Marques and Dehaene (2004) tried to distinguish between the rescaling (conversion from domestic currency to euro through multiplication by a multiple or a fraction) and the relearning (relearning product prices in the new currency) hypotheses
- after implementation of euro variability in price estimates by participants decreased with time- indicating that the value of the euro was learned
- those products (in Austria) that were purchased more often were estimated more precisely quicker
- rescaling was more often used for exceptional purchases
- Juliusson et al. (2005) hypothesised that learning product prices is only the first stage of the relearning model. in the second stage the reversal of product prices tells people how much their money is worth, however, that is more difficult if the inverse is a fraction than when it is multiple
12
Q
What is the money illusion? And what is the euro-illusion?
A
- its the tendency to disregard the real value (e.g. purchasing power) of money and instead focus on its nominal value
- inflationary changes are not perceived
- leads to sometimes sub-optimal decisions
- the euro-illusion is related to the money illusion… its also called the face-value illusion: it means that changes in exchange rate influence price evaluations
- price in euro is perceived cheaper when compared to a currency with higher nominal values (e.g. italian Lire), but more expensive when compared to one that is nominally larger (e.g. German Mark)
- illusion reverses whenif the price is evaluated relative to income or budget
- price in euro is perceived cheaper when compared to a currency with higher nominal values (e.g. italian Lire), but more expensive when compared to one that is nominally larger (e.g. German Mark)
- this illusion could be the result of the numerosity heuristic
- it refers a sensible cognitive oversimplification (e.g. two different cakes usually contain more kalories than one but not necessarily)
- expectation that the euro would lead to higher prices (e.g. Teuro) led people to disregard cheap price conversions and more easily accept higher ones
13
Q
What is meant by loss aversion?
A
- people’s tendency to dislike losses more than they like gains
- as seen in the steepness of prospect theory’s function of losses
- an even amount of winning or losing a small amount of money is therefore preferred to an even chance of winning or losing a large amount
- example of loss averson is the endowment effect
- Kahneman and Novemsky (2005) argue that loss aversion is only invoked when spending a certain amount is above one’s budget, not when it is within it
- as seen in the steepness of prospect theory’s function of losses
14
Q
What’s the endowment effect?
A
- a form of loss aversion in which people demand higher prices to sell something they own than they are willing to pay for buying it
- it is immediate but it increases with the length of possession
- it is reduced if a negative mood was induced shortly before the product was bought (Small and Loewenstein, 2004)
- perhaps buyers perceive paying price as a loss but sellers perceive losing the benefit of the good as a loss
15
Q
What is the expected-utility theory?
A
- a normative theory on financiaal descision making, developed in the 1940s and 50s (Von Neumann)
- expected value is the sum that could be won times the probability that it will be won
- surely winning 10€ or winning 1000€ with a probability of 0.01% have the same expected value
- risk attitude derives from this theory
- in the example above, someone that is indifferent to either choice has a neutral risk attitude, someone who prefers sure 10€ is risk averse, and one who prefers 1000€ with a probability of 0.01% is risk seeking
- however, prospect theory claims that this value function is not linear but nonlinear