IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/paaero/340045.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Behavioral Aspects of Investment Decisions on Farms

Author

Listed:
  • Smiglak-Krajewska, Magdalena

Abstract

The main purpose of this paper is to identify the behavioral factors that impact the investment decisions made by farm managers. A survey carried out in 2023 with 152 farms located in Greater Poland was the source of empirical materials. The study suggests that overconfidence and over-optimism are not widespread in the group surveyed. In assessing their own knowledge of investment topics, 74% of farmers claimed to be equally competent as other agricultural producers. When preparing the implementation of an investment, most respondents (47%) foresee a neutral scenario of how the situation could development, 20% for an optimistic scenario and only 13% pick a pessimistic one. Nearly 25% of interviewees admitted to rely on the brand’s reputation when choosing a fixed asset (the availability heuristic). The vast majority of farmers surveyed (65%) replied that investing their own funds requires a more in-depth analysis. This corroborates the conclusions made by Richard Thaler and Eric Johnson who discovered that people are less willing to risk their own hardearned money.

Suggested Citation

  • Smiglak-Krajewska, Magdalena, 2023. "Behavioral Aspects of Investment Decisions on Farms," Roczniki (Annals), Polish Association of Agricultural Economists and Agribusiness - Stowarzyszenie Ekonomistow Rolnictwa e Agrobiznesu (SERiA), vol. 2023(3).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:paaero:340045
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.340045
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/340045/files/MIGLAK-17.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.340045?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ganzach, Yoav, 2000. "Judging Risk and Return of Financial Assets," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 353-370, November.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Ou Li & Chan Zhao, 2021. "How the COVID-19 pandemic influences judgments of risk and benefit: the role of negative emotions," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(3-4), pages 466-476, April.
    4. Juan Cárdenas & Nicolas Roux & Christian Jaramillo & Luis Martinez, 2014. "Is it my money or not? An experiment on risk aversion and the house-money effect," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(1), pages 47-60, March.
    5. Richard H. Thaler & Eric J. Johnson, 1990. "Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 643-660, June.
    6. Tali Sharot & Cass R. Sunstein, 2020. "How people decide what they want to know," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(1), pages 14-19, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mujcic, Redzo & Powdthavee, Nattavudh, 2022. "How Do Humans Respond to Huge Financial Losses?," IZA Discussion Papers 15536, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Maximilian Rüdisser & Raphael Flepp & Egon Franck, 2017. "Do casinos pay their customers to become risk-averse? Revising the house money effect in a field experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(3), pages 736-754, September.
    3. Hauke Jelschen & Ulrich Schmidt, 2023. "Windfall gains and house money: The effects of endowment history and prior outcomes on risky decision–making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 66(3), pages 215-232, June.
    4. Maximilian Rüdisser & Raphael Flepp & Egon Franck, 2017. "When do reference points update? A field analysis of the effect of prior gains and losses on risk-taking over time," Working Papers 369, University of Zurich, Department of Business Administration (IBW).
    5. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver, 2022. "Experience of losses and aversion to uncertainty - experimental evidence from farmers in Mexico," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    6. Mohamed Es-Sanoun & Jude Gohou & Mounir Benboubker, 2023. "Testing of Herd Behavior In african Stock Markets During COVID-19 Pandemic [Essai de vérification du comportement mimétique dans les marchés boursiers africains au cours de la crise de covid-19]," Post-Print hal-04144289, HAL.
    7. Lovric, M. & Kaymak, U. & Spronk, J., 2008. "A Conceptual Model of Investor Behavior," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-030-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    8. Ispano, Alessandro & Schwardmann, Peter, 2017. "Cooperating over losses and competing over gains: A social dilemma experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 329-348.
    9. Chorvat, Terrence, 2006. "Taxing utility," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-16, February.
    10. Duncan Luce, R., 1997. "Associative joint receipts," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 51-74, August.
    11. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    12. Elie Matta & Jean McGuire, 2008. "Too Risky to Hold? The Effect of Downside Risk, Accumulated Equity Wealth, and Firm Performance on CEO Equity Reduction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 567-580, August.
    13. Martin Kukuk & Stefan Winter, 2008. "An Alternative Explanation of the Favorite-Longshot Bias," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 2(2), pages 79-96, September.
    14. Xue Dong He & Sang Hu & Jan Obłój & Xun Yu Zhou, 2017. "Technical Note—Path-Dependent and Randomized Strategies in Barberis’ Casino Gambling Model," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(1), pages 97-103, February.
    15. Einiö, Mikko & Kaustia, Markku & Puttonen, Vesa, 2008. "Price setting and the reluctance to realize losses in apartment markets," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 19-34, February.
    16. Raymond H. Chan & Ephraim Clark & Xu Guo & Wing-Keung Wong, 2020. "New development on the third-order stochastic dominance for risk-averse and risk-seeking investors with application in risk management," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(2), pages 108-132, June.
    17. Iñigo Iturbe-Ormaetxe & Giovanni Ponti & Josefa Tomás, 2016. "Myopic Loss Aversion under Ambiguity and Gender Effects," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-11, December.
    18. Aloysius, John A., 2003. "Rational escalation of costs by playing a sequence of unfavorable gambles: the martingale," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 111-129, May.
    19. Christoph Bühren & Thorben C. Kundt, 2013. "Worker or Shirker – Who Evades More Taxes? A Real Effort Experiment," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201326, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    20. White, Tiffany Barnett & Novak, Thomas P. & Hoffman, Donna L., 2014. "No Strings Attached: When Giving It Away Versus Making Them Pay Reduces Consumer Information Disclosure," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 184-195.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:paaero:340045. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/seriaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.