IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v64y2016icp106-121.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The investment decisions of young adults under relaxed borrowing constraints

Author

Listed:
  • Insler, Michael
  • Compton, James
  • Schmitt, Pamela

Abstract

Students at the United States Naval Academy have the opportunity to take a Career Starter Loan (CSL). Two military-oriented banks offer these large personal loans at very low interest rates to all students. Thus the CSL provides a novel opportunity to study the behavior of a sample of borrowers that is not selected due to credit history and is often too liquidity-constrained to invest. Using survey data, this paper examines borrowers’ investment and consumption decisions in relation to their cognitive ability (measured by the Cognitive Reflection Test, the SAT, and grade point average), personality traits (captured by the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator), and other demographic characteristics. Tobit models reveal that: (1) cognitive ability is positively associated with more investment and riskier choices; (2) some MBTI personality traits are strong predictors of investment behavior; (3) individuals with prior investment experience or who view themselves as financially literate tend to invest more and with more risk; (4) these findings are largely consistent across students from all income levels.

Suggested Citation

  • Insler, Michael & Compton, James & Schmitt, Pamela, 2016. "The investment decisions of young adults under relaxed borrowing constraints," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 106-121.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:64:y:2016:i:c:p:106-121
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2015.07.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804315000944
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2015.07.004?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. Steffen Andersen & Kasper Meisner Nielsen, 2011. "Participation Constraints in the Stock Market: Evidence from Unexpected Inheritance Due to Sudden Death," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 24(5), pages 1667-1697.
    3. Scott E. Carrell & Richard L. Fullerton & James E. West, 2009. "Does Your Cohort Matter? Measuring Peer Effects in College Achievement," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 27(3), pages 439-464, July.
    4. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    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. Calvin Mudzingiri & Sevias Guvuriro & Charity Gomo, 2021. "Exploring Association between Self-Reported Financial Status and Economic Preferences Using Experimental Data," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-13, May.
    2. Kiss, Hubert János & Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael & Rosa-García, Alfonso, 2015. "Kognitív képességek és stratégiai bizonytalanság egy bankrohamkísérletben [Cognitive abilities and strategic uncertainty in a bank-run experiment]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(10), pages 1030-1047.
    3. Hyunwoo Woo & So Young Sohn, 2022. "A credit scoring model based on the Myers–Briggs type indicator in online peer-to-peer lending," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 8(1), pages 1-19, December.
    4. Cueva, Carlos & Iturbe-Ormaetxe, Iñigo & Mata-Pérez, Esther & Ponti, Giovanni & Sartarelli, Marcello & Yu, Haihan & Zhukova, Vita, 2016. "Cognitive (ir)reflection: New experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 81-93.
    5. Rao, Aniruddha S. & Lakkol, Savitha G., 2022. "A review on personality models and investment decisions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(C).
    6. Andreoni, James & Di Girolamo, Amalia & List, John A. & Mackevicius, Claire & Samek, Anya, 2020. "Risk preferences of children and adolescents in relation to gender, cognitive skills, soft skills, and executive functions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 729-742.
    7. Jesús F. Salgado & Inmaculada Otero & Silvia Moscoso, 2019. "Cognitive Reflection and General Mental Ability as Predictors of Job Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-16, November.
    8. Stoian, Andreea & Vintila, Nicoleta & Iorgulescu, Filip & Cepoi, Cosmin Octavian & Dina Manolache, Aurora, 2021. "How Risk Aversion and Financial Literacy Shape Young Adults’ Investment Preferences," MPRA Paper 109755, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Smith, John, 2016. "Cognitive abilities and economic behavior," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 1-4.

    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. Corgnet, Brice & DeSantis, Mark & Porter, David, 2020. "The distribution of information and the price efficiency of markets," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    2. Michalis Drouvelis & Julian C. Jamison, 2015. "Selecting public goods institutions: Who likes to punish and reward?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 82(2), pages 501-534, October.
    3. Neyse, Levent & Bosworth, Steven & Ring, Patrick & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2016. "Overconfidence, Incentives and Digit Ratio," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 130145, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    4. 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.
    5. Eizo Akiyama & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Ryuichiro Ishikawa, 2017. "It is Not Just Confusion! Strategic Uncertainty in An Experimental Asset Market," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(605), pages 563-580, October.
    6. Antoni Bosch-Domènech & Pablo Brañas-Garza & Antonio M. Espín, 2013. "Can exposure to prenatal sex hormones (2D:4D) predict cognitive reflection?," Working Papers 698, Barcelona School of Economics.
    7. 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.
    8. Ray Saadaoui Mallek & Mohamed Albaity, 2019. "Individual differences and cognitive reflection across gender and nationality the case of the United Arab Emirates," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 1567965-156, January.
    9. Kai Duttle & Keigo Inukai, 2015. "Complexity Aversion: Influences of Cognitive Abilities, Culture and System of Thought," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(2), pages 846-855.
    10. Mohammad Noori, 2016. "Cognitive reflection as a predictor of susceptibility to behavioral anomalies," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(1), pages 114-120, January.
    11. Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus & Riener, Gerhard, 2016. "A first test of focusing theory," DICE Discussion Papers 214, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    12. David J. Deming, 2021. "The Growing Importance of Decision-Making on the Job," NBER Working Papers 28733, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Baghestanian, Sascha & Frey, Seth, 2016. "GO figure: Analytic and strategic skills are separable," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 71-80.
    14. Masahide Watanabe & Toshio Fujimi, 2024. "Ambiguity attitudes toward natural and artificial sources in gain and loss domains," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 51-75, February.
    15. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:3:p:175-190 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Lauber, Arne & March, Christoph & Sahm, Marco, 2023. "Optimal and fair prizing in sequential round-robin tournaments: Experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 30-51.
    17. Corgnet, Brice & DeSantis, Mark & Porter, David, 2021. "Information aggregation and the cognitive make-up of market participants," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    18. Brice Corgnet & Antonio M. Espin & Roberto Hernán-Gonzalez, 2016. "Creativity and Cognitive Skills among Millennials: Thinking Too Much and Creating Too Little," Post-Print halshs-01439169, HAL.
    19. Schwaiger, Rene & Kirchler, Michael & Lindner, Florian & Weitzel, Utz, 2020. "Determinants of investor expectations and satisfaction. A study with financial professionals," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    20. 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.
    21. Benjamin Enke & Uri Gneezy & Brian Hall & David Martin & Vadim Nelidov & Theo Offerman & Jeroen van de Ven, 2020. "Cognitive Biases: Mistakes or Missing Stakes?," CESifo Working Paper Series 8168, CESifo.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Survey methods; Behavioral economics; Personal finance; Investment decisions;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D14 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Household Saving; Personal Finance
    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions

    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:soceco:v:64:y:2016:i:c:p:106-121. 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/inca/620175 .

    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.