IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v141y2016icp1-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Domain-specific risk preference and cognitive ability

Author

Listed:
  • Park, Na Young

Abstract

Kahneman and Tversky’s works on Prospect Theory compellingly demonstrate that people tend to show varying risk-attitudes for gains versus losses as well as high versus low probabilities associated with the outcomes. Although some studies have found that individuals with lower cognitive skills tend to be risk averse, the literature has not addressed yet a comprehensive understanding of domain-specific risk preference variation by cognitive ability and by gains versus losses as well as high versus low probabilities associated with the outcomes. Thus, this paper attempts to provide a comprehensive picture of domain-specific risk preference variations. The results of this paper show the following: individuals with low cognitive skills tend to be risk-averse (and more risk-averse compared to people with high cognitive ability) when facing high probability of gain or low probability of loss, however risk-seeking (although less risk-seeking compared to people with high cognitive ability) when facing low probability of gain or high probability of loss. My results are consistent with the implications of Kahneman and Tversky’s prospect theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Park, Na Young, 2016. "Domain-specific risk preference and cognitive ability," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 1-4.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:141:y:2016:i:c:p:1-4
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2016.01.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176516000112
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.econlet.2016.01.008?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Oechssler, Jörg & Roider, Andreas & Schmitz, Patrick W., 2009. "Cognitive abilities and behavioral biases," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 147-152, October.
    2. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2010. "Are Risk Aversion and Impatience Related to Cognitive Ability?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 1238-1260, June.
    3. Xue, Licun, 2008. "The bargaining within," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 145-147, November.
    4. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Guillen, Pablo & del Paso, Rafael López, 2008. "Math skills and risk attitudes," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 332-336, May.
    5. Andres Almazan & Sanjay Banerji & Adolfo De Motta, 2008. "Attracting Attention: Cheap Managerial Talk and Costly Market Monitoring," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 63(3), pages 1399-1436, June.
    6. 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..
    7. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    8. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    9. Francesca Carrieri & Ines Chaieb & Vihang Errunza, 2013. "Do Implicit Barriers Matter for Globalization?," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 26(7), pages 1694-1739.
    10. Banerji, Sanjay & Errunza, Vihang R., 2005. "Privatization under incomplete information and bankruptcy risk," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 735-757, March.
    11. Martinez, Jose Vicente, 2011. "Information misweighting and the cross-section of stock recommendations," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 515-539, November.
    12. Diamantoudi, Effrosyni & Miyagawa, Eiichi & Xue, Licun, 2015. "Decentralized matching: The role of commitment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 1-17.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Amador, Luis & Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Espín, Antonio M. & Garcia, Teresa & Hernández, Ana, 2019. "Consistent and inconsistent choices under uncertainty: The role of cognitive abilities," MPRA Paper 95178, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Amador-Hidalgo, Luis & Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Espín, Antonio M. & García-Muñoz, Teresa & Hernández-Román, Ana, 2021. "Cognitive abilities and risk-taking: Errors, not preferences," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).

    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. Na Young Park, 2018. "OCD and Errors in Financial Decisions," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(4), pages 1970-1977.
    2. Jonathan Chapman & Erik Snowberg & Stephanie Wang & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Loss Attitudes in the U.S. Population: Evidence from Dynamically Optimized Sequential Experimentation (DOSE)," NBER Working Papers 25072, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Mark Schneider, 2016. "Dual Process Utility Theory: A Model of Decisions Under Risk and Over Time," Working Papers 16-23, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    4. Gerardo Sabater-Grande & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Noemí Herranz-Zarzoso, 2023. "Goals and guesses as reference points: a field experiment on student performance," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 94(2), pages 249-274, February.
    5. Park, Na Young, 2020. "Trust and trusting behavior in financial institutions: Evidence from South Korea," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 408-419.
    6. Syngjoo Choi & Jeongbin Kim & Eungik Lee & Jungmin Lee, 2022. "Probability Weighting and Cognitive Ability," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(7), pages 5201-5215, July.
    7. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda & Adrian Bruhin, 2011. "Viewing the future through a warped lens: Why uncertainty generates hyperbolic discounting," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 169-203, December.
    8. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2019. "How related are risk preferences and time preferences?," CLTS Working Papers 4/19, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 16 Oct 2019.
    9. Galarza, Francisco, 2009. "Choices under Risk in Rural Peru," MPRA Paper 17708, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Mariam Raheem & Ain ul Momina, 2021. "Do Underlying Risk Preferences explain Individuals’ Cognitive Ability? Evidence from a Sample of Pakistani Students," Lahore Journal of Economics, Department of Economics, The Lahore School of Economics, vol. 26(1), pages 85-122, Jan-June.
    11. Victor Stango & Joanne Yoong & Jonathan Zinman, 2017. "Quicksand or Bedrock for Behavioral Economics? Assessing Foundational Empirical Questions," NBER Working Papers 23625, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    13. Königsheim, C. & Lukas, M. & Nöth, M., 2019. "Salience theory: Calibration and heterogeneity in probability distortion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 477-495.
    14. Jonathan Chapman & Erik Snowberg & Stephanie Wang & Colin Camerer, 2022. "Looming Large or Seeming Small? Attitudes Towards Losses in a Representative Sample," CESifo Working Paper Series 9820, CESifo.
    15. Kiss, H.J. & Rodriguez-Lara, I. & Rosa-García, A., 2016. "Think twice before running! Bank runs and cognitive abilities," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 12-19.
    16. Lorenzo Esposito & Lorenzo Marrese, 2021. "The impact of cognitive skills on investment decisions. An empirical assessment and policy suggestions," DISCE - Quaderni del Dipartimento di Politica Economica dipe0019, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Dipartimenti e Istituti di Scienze Economiche (DISCE).
    17. Mark Schneider, 2018. "A Dual System Model of Risk and Time Preferences," Working Papers 18-18, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    18. Duffy, Sean & Smith, John, 2014. "Cognitive load in the multi-player prisoner's dilemma game: Are there brains in games?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 47-56.
    19. Chen, Chia-Ching & Chiu, I-Ming & Smith, John & Yamada, Tetsuji, 2013. "Too smart to be selfish? Measures of cognitive ability, social preferences, and consistency," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 112-122.
    20. Daiane De Bortoli & Newton da Costa Jr. & Marco Goulart & Jéssica Campara, 2019. "Personality traits and investor profile analysis: A behavioral finance study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-18, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Probability information weighting; Cognitive ability; Risk preference; Investment decision;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eee:ecolet:v:141:y:2016:i:c:p:1-4. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolet .

    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.