IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/expeco/v22y2019i1d10.1007_s10683-018-09598-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scale matters: risk perception, return expectations, and investment propensity under different scalings

Author

Listed:
  • Christoph Huber

    (University of Innsbruck)

  • Jürgen Huber

    (University of Innsbruck)

Abstract

With a novel experimental design we investigate whether risk perception, return expectations, and investment propensity are influenced by the scale of the vertical axis in charts. We explore this for two presentation formats, namely return charts and price charts, where we depict low- and high-volatility assets with distinct trends. We find that varying the scale strongly affects people’s risk perception, as a narrower scale of the vertical axis leads to significantly higher perceived riskiness of an asset even if the underlying volatility is the same. Furthermore, past returns predict future return expectations almost perfectly. In our setting perceived profitability was considered more important than perceived riskiness when making investment choices. Overall we show that adapting the scale of a chart makes it easier to recognize yearly return variations within a single security, but at the same time makes it harder to identify differences between dissimilar securities. This is something regulators should be aware of and take into account in the rules they set.

Suggested Citation

  • Christoph Huber & Jürgen Huber, 2019. "Scale matters: risk perception, return expectations, and investment propensity under different scalings," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(1), pages 76-100, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:expeco:v:22:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s10683-018-09598-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10683-018-09598-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10683-018-09598-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10683-018-09598-4?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Molly Mercer & Alan R. Palmiter & Ahmed E. Taha, 2010. "Worthless Warnings? Testing the Effectiveness of Disclaimers in Mutual Fund Advertisements," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(3), pages 429-459, September.
    2. Simon Gächter & Eric J. Johnson & Andreas Herrmann, 2022. "Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 599-624, April.
    3. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    4. Christian Ehm & Christine Kaufmann & Martin Weber, 2014. "Volatility Inadaptability: Investors Care About Risk, but Cannot Cope with Volatility," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 18(4), pages 1387-1423.
    5. Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa, 1989. "The Effect of Task Demands and Graphical Format on Information Processing Strategies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(3), pages 285-303, March.
    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. Christine Kaufmann & Martin Weber & Emily Haisley, 2013. "The Role of Experience Sampling and Graphical Displays on One's Investment Risk Appetite," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 323-340, July.
    8. Jianmin Jia & James S. Dyer & John C. Butler, 1999. "Measures of Perceived Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(4), pages 519-532, April.
    9. Chen, Daniel L. & Schonger, Martin & Wickens, Chris, 2016. "oTree—An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 88-97.
    10. Elke U. Weber & Niklas Siebenmorgen & Martin Weber, 2005. "Communicating Asset Risk: How Name Recognition and the Format of Historic Volatility Information Affect Risk Perception and Investment Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 597-609, June.
    11. Grosshans, Daniel & Zeisberger, Stefan, 2018. "All’s well that ends well? On the importance of how returns are achieved," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 397-410.
    12. Holzmeister, Felix, 2017. "oTree: Ready-made apps for risk preference elicitation methods," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 33-38.
    13. Lawrence, Michael & O'Connor, Marcus, 1993. "Scale, Variability, and the Calibration of Judgmental Prediction Intervals," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 441-458, December.
    14. Lawrence, Michael & O'Connor, Marcus, 1992. "Exploring judgemental forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 15-26, June.
    15. Alen Nosić & Martin Weber, 2010. "How Riskily Do I Invest? The Role of Risk Attitudes, Risk Perceptions, and Overconfidence," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 282-301, September.
    16. Bock, Olaf & Baetge, Ingmar & Nicklisch, Andreas, 2014. "hroot: Hamburg Registration and Organization Online Tool," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 117-120.
    17. Johannes Kaiser, 2007. "An exact and a Monte Carlo proposal to the Fisher–Pitman permutation tests for paired replicates and for independent samples," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(3), pages 402-412, September.
    18. Diacon, Stephen & Hasseldine, John, 2007. "Framing effects and risk perception: The effect of prior performance presentation format on investment fund choice," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 31-52, January.
    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. Dan Zhu & Qingwei Wang & John Goddard, 2022. "A new hedging hypothesis regarding prediction interval formation in stock price forecasting," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(4), pages 697-717, July.
    2. Andraszewicz, Sandra & Friedman, Jason & Kaszás, Dániel & Hölscher, Christoph, 2023. "Zurich Trading Simulator (ZTS) — A dynamic trading experimental tool for oTree," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    3. Huber, Christoph & Huber, Jürgen & Kirchler, Michael, 2022. "Volatility shocks and investment behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 56-70.
    4. Huber, Christoph & Huber, Jürgen & Kirchler, Michael, 2021. "Market shocks and professionals’ investment behavior – Evidence from the COVID-19 crash," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    5. Borsboom, Charlotte & Janssen, Dirk-Jan & Strucks, Markus & Zeisberger, Stefan, 2022. "History matters: How short-term price charts hurt investment performance," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    6. Borsboom, Charlotte & Zeisberger, Stefan, 2020. "What makes an investment risky? An analysis of price path characteristics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 92-125.
    7. Huber, Christoph & Kirchler, Michael, 2023. "Experiments in finance: A survey of historical trends," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    8. Johannes G. Jaspersen & Marc A. Ragin & Justin R. Sydnor, 2020. "Linking subjective and incentivized risk attitudes: The importance of losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 187-206, April.
    9. Nobuyuki Hanaki & Cars Hommes & Dávid Kopányi & Anita Kopányi-Peuker & Jan Tuinstra, 2023. "Forecasting returns instead of prices exacerbates financial bubbles," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(5), pages 1185-1213, November.
    10. Cordes, Henning & Nolte, Sven & Schneider, Judith C., 2023. "Dynamics of stock market developments, financial behavior, and emotions," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    11. Christoph Huber & Parampreet C. Bindra & Daniel Kleinlercher, 2019. "Design-features of bubble-prone experimental asset markets with a constant FV," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(2), pages 197-209, December.
    12. Baars, Maren & Mohrschladt, Hannes, 2024. "Preferences for maximum daily returns," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 343-353.

    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. Huber, Christoph & Huber, Jürgen & Kirchler, Michael, 2022. "Volatility shocks and investment behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 56-70.
    2. Huber, Christoph & Huber, Jürgen & Kirchler, Michael, 2021. "Market shocks and professionals’ investment behavior – Evidence from the COVID-19 crash," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    3. Laura Hueber & Rene Schwaiger, 2021. "Debiasing Through Experience Sampling: The Case of Myopic Loss Aversion," Working Papers 2021-01, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    4. Holzmeister, Felix & Stefan, Matthias, 2019. "The Risk Elicitation Puzzle Revisited: Across-Methods (In)consistency?," OSF Preprints pj9u2, Center for Open Science.
    5. Felix Holzmeister & Matthias Stefan, 2019. "The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?," Working Papers 2019-19, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    6. Liêu, L.M. & Pelster, M., 2020. "Framing and the disposition effect in a scopic regime," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 175-185.
    7. Felix Holzmeister & Matthias Stefan, 2021. "The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 593-616, June.
    8. Lindner, Florian & Kirchler, Michael & Rosenkranz, Stephanie & Weitzel, Utz, 2021. "Social Motives and Risk-Taking in Investment Decisions," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    9. Bradbury, Meike A.S. & Hens, Thorsten & Zeisberger, Stefan, 2019. "How persistent are the effects of experience sampling on investor behavior?," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 61-79.
    10. Michael Kirchler & Florian Lindner & Utz Weitzel, 2018. "Rankings and Risk‐Taking in the Finance Industry," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 73(5), pages 2271-2302, October.
    11. Borsboom, Charlotte & Janssen, Dirk-Jan & Strucks, Markus & Zeisberger, Stefan, 2022. "History matters: How short-term price charts hurt investment performance," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    12. Neyse, Levent & Vieider, Ferdinand M. & Ring, Patrick & Probst, Catharina & Kaernbach, Christian & Eimeren, Thilo van & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2020. "Risk attitudes and digit ratio (2D:4D): Evidence from prospect theory," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, issue 60, pages 29-51.
    13. Florian Lindner & Michael Kirchler & Stephanie Rosenkranz & Utz Weitzel, 2019. "Social Status and Risk-Taking in Investment Decisions," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2019_07, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    14. Buchanan, Joy A., 2020. "My reference point, not yours," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 297-311.
    15. Christoffersen, Jeppe & Holzmeister, Felix & Plenborg, Thomas, 2023. "What is risk to managers?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    16. Dan Zhu & Qingwei Wang & John Goddard, 2022. "A new hedging hypothesis regarding prediction interval formation in stock price forecasting," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(4), pages 697-717, July.
    17. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    18. Luís Santos-Pinto & Adrian Bruhin & José Mata & Thomas Åstebro, 2015. "Detecting heterogeneous risk attitudes with mixed gambles," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 573-600, December.
    19. Hermansson, Cecilia, 2018. "Can self-assessed financial risk measures explain and predict bank customers’ objective financial risk?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 226-240.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Behavioral finance; Judgment; Risk perception; Scaling; Presentation format;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D14 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Household Saving; Personal Finance
    • D18 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Protection
    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
    • G41 - Financial Economics - - Behavioral Finance - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making in Financial Markets

    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:kap:expeco:v:22:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s10683-018-09598-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.