IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijfss/v12y2024i4p124-d1541624.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Adapting the National Financial Capability Test to Address Generational Differences in Cognitive Biases

Author

Listed:
  • Sergio Da Silva

    (Department of Economics, Socioeconomic Center, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis 88049-970, SC, Brazil)

  • Ana Paraboni

    (Department of Business Administration, Socioeconomic Center, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis 88049-970, SC, Brazil)

  • Raul Matsushita

    (Department of Statistics, Institute of Exact Sciences, University of Brasilia, Brasilia 70910-900, DF, Brazil)

Abstract

This study examined the influence of cognitive biases on financial literacy test outcomes across four generational groups: Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Baby Boomers. Using the National Financial Capability Test and an online in silico experiment, we analyzed how cognitive biases influence the likely responses of each generation. The results indicate that the current test format aligns more closely with Baby Boomers, who are less affected by certain biases but tend to exhibit resistance to new financial strategies. A key contribution of this research is the identification of generational bias profiles and actionable recommendations for tailoring financial literacy assessments to reflect these differences. Our approach not only advances behavioral finance literature but also introduces innovative methodology through AI-driven simulations, providing a replicable framework for exploring cognitive influences in decision-making. The findings underscore the need for tailored financial education programs that consider these cognitive biases, aiming to foster unbiased financial decision-making across age groups.

Suggested Citation

  • Sergio Da Silva & Ana Paraboni & Raul Matsushita, 2024. "Adapting the National Financial Capability Test to Address Generational Differences in Cognitive Biases," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-20, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijfss:v:12:y:2024:i:4:p:124-:d:1541624
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7072/12/4/124/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7072/12/4/124/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine & Zacharias Maniadis, 2012. "On the Robustness of Anchoring Effects in WTP and WTA Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 131-145, May.
    2. Soumyadwip Das & Sumit Kumar Maji, 2023. "Farmer's financial literacy and its determinants: evidence from South Asia," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 50(9), pages 1341-1354, March.
    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. Massimo Florio & Francesco Giffoni & Gelsomina Catalano, 2020. "Should governments fund basic science? Evidence from a willingness-to-pay experiment in five universities," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 16-33, January.
    2. Sugden, Robert & Zheng, Jiwei & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2013. "Not all anchors are created equal," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 21-31.
    3. Li, Lunzheng & Maniadis, Zacharias & Sedikides, Constantine, 2021. "Anchoring in Economics: A Meta-Analysis of Studies on Willingness-To-Pay and Willingness-To-Accept," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Sangsuk Yoon & Nathan M. Fong & Angelika Dimoka, 2019. "The robustness of anchoring effects on preferential judgments," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(4), pages 470-487, July.
    6. Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine & Zacharias Maniadis, 2012. "On the Robustness of Anchoring Effects in WTP and WTA Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 131-145, May.
    7. Greg Fischer & Dean Karlan & Margaret McConnell & Pia Raffler, 2014. "To Charge or Not to Charge: Evidence from a Health Products Experiment in Uganda," Working Papers 1041, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    8. Susan Godlonton & Manuel A Hernandez & Mike Murphy, 2018. "Anchoring Bias in Recall Data: Evidence from Central America," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(2), pages 479-501.
    9. Suanna Oh, 2023. "Does Identity Affect Labor Supply?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 113(8), pages 2055-2083, August.
    10. Fischer, Greg & Karlan, Dean & McConnell, Margaret & Raffler, Pia, 2019. "Short-term subsidies and seller type: A health products experiment in Uganda," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 110-124.
    11. Jonathan E. Alevy & Craig E. Landry & John A. List, 2015. "Field Experiments On The Anchoring Of Economic Valuations," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 53(3), pages 1522-1538, July.
    12. Zacharias Maniadis & Fabio Tufano & John A. List, 2014. "One Swallow Doesn't Make a Summer: New Evidence on Anchoring Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(1), pages 277-290, January.
    13. Shrestha, Anusha & Grala, Robert K. & Grado, Stephen C. & Roberts, Scott D. & Gordon, Jason S. & Adhikari, Ram K., 2021. "Nonindustrial private forest landowner willingness to pay for prescribed burning to lower wildfire hazards," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    14. Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Glenk, Klaus, 2015. "Learning how to choose—effects of instructional choice sets in discrete choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 122-142.
    15. Holger Herz & Dmitry Taubinsky, 2018. "What Makes a Price Fair? An Experimental Study of Transaction Experience and Endogenous Fairness Views," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 316-352.
    16. Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till, 2014. "Are groups 'less behavioral'? The case of anchoring," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 188, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    17. Magdalena Brzozowicz & Michał Krawczyk & Przemysław Kusztelak, 2017. "Do anchors hold for real? Anchoring effect and hypothetical bias in declared WTP," Working Papers 2017-24, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    18. Holst, G.S. & Hermann, D. & Mußhoff, O., 2015. "Anchoring Effects in an Experimental Auction," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 50, March.
    19. Honda, Hidehito & Ogawa, Midori & Murakoshi, Takuma & Masuda, Tomohiro & Utsumi, Ken & Park, Sora & Kimura, Atsushi & Nei, Daisuke & Wada, Yuji, 2015. "Effect of visual aids and individual differences of cognitive traits in judgments on food safety," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 33-40.
    20. Ockenfels, Axel & Werner, Peter, 2014. "Scale manipulation in dictator games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 138-142.

    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:gam:jijfss:v:12:y:2024:i:4:p:124-:d:1541624. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.