IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/psl/moneta/202214.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gli effetti della modalita' di comunicazione del rischio sulle scelte di investimento finanziario: i risultati di un esperimento (Risk communication and investment decisions: An experimental analysis)

Author

Listed:
  • Irene Maria Buso

    (CESIEG, LUISS Guido Carli, e Universita' Ca' Foscari di Venezia)

  • Daniela Di Cagno

    (LUISS Guido Carli)

  • Vittorio Larocca

    (CESIEG, LUISS Guido Carli)

  • Lorenzo Spadoni

    (Universita' di Cassino e del Lazio meridionale)

Abstract

La modalita' in cui sono presentate le scelte in condizioni di rischio puo' influenzare la scelta di investimento finanziario? In questo lavoro vengono riportati i risultati di un esperimento in cui i partecipanti fronteggiano una serie di decisioni di investimento tra un titolo con rendimento certo e uno con rendimento rischioso presentate in diverse modalita' "visive": istogramma, albero e verbale. I dati raccolti mostrano che le scelte di investimento variano sulla base delle modalita' di presentazione del titolo rischioso. In particolare, i soggetti sono disposti a farsi carico di un maggiore rischio quando il titolo rischioso e' presentato con una modalita' a loro piu' familiare (preferita). Can the way in which risky investments are presented affect the decisions of investors? This paper shows the results of an experiment in which participants face a sequence of portfolio decisions consisting in allocating an endowment between a risk-free and a risky asset presented in different "visual" modes: histogram, tree and with words. The data collected point out that the adopted representation mode for the risky asset affects the choices of participants. In particular, participants exhibit a lower risk aversion when the risky asset is presented in a more familiar (preferred) mode.

Suggested Citation

  • Irene Maria Buso & Daniela Di Cagno & Vittorio Larocca & Lorenzo Spadoni, 2022. "Gli effetti della modalita' di comunicazione del rischio sulle scelte di investimento finanziario: i risultati di un esperimento (Risk communication and investment decisions: An experimental analysis)," Moneta e Credito, Economia civile, vol. 75(297), pages 61-75.
    • Handle: RePEc:psl:moneta:2022:14
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://rosa.uniroma1.it/rosa04/moneta_e_credito/article/view/17735/16836
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alempaki, Despoina & Starmer, Chris & Tufano, Fabio, 2019. "On the priming of risk preferences: The role of fear and general affect," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 75(PA).
    2. Nadia Linciano & Caterina Lucarelli & Monica Gentile & Paola Soccorso, 2018. "How financial information disclosure affects risk perception. Evidence from Italian investors’ behaviour," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(15), pages 1311-1332, October.
    3. 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.
    4. 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..
    5. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    6. 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.
    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. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin, 2016. "A theoretical and experimental appraisal of four risk elicitation methods," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(3), pages 613-641, September.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Colasante, Annarita & Marini, Matteo M. & Russo, Alberto, 2017. "Incidental emotions and risk-taking: An experimental analysis," MPRA Paper 76992, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Imen Bouhlel & Michela Chessa & Agnès Festré & Eric Guerci, 2019. "When to Stop? A Theoretical and Experimental Investigation of an Individual Search Task," GREDEG Working Papers 2019-40, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    5. Daniel Woods & Mustafa Abdallah & Saurabh Bagchi & Shreyas Sundaram & Timothy Cason, 2022. "Network defense and behavioral biases: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 254-286, February.
    6. Markus Dertwinkel-Kalt & Jonas Frey, 2020. "Optimal Stopping in a Dynamic Salience Model," CESifo Working Paper Series 8496, CESifo.
    7. Klockmann, Victor & von Schenk, Alicia & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2022. "Artificial intelligence, ethics, and intergenerational responsibility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 203(C), pages 284-317.
    8. Fidanoski, Filip & Johnson, Timothy, 2023. "A z-Tree implementation of the Dynamic Experiments for Estimating Preferences [DEEP] method," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 38(C).
    9. Llorente-Saguer, Aniol & Sheremeta, Roman M. & Szech, Nora, 2023. "Designing contests between heterogeneous contestants: An experimental study of tie-breaks and bid-caps in all-pay auctions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    10. 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.
    11. Astrid Gamba & Elena Manzoni & Luca Stanca, 2017. "Social comparison and risk taking behavior," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 82(2), pages 221-248, February.
    12. de Castro, Luciano & Galvao, Antonio F. & Noussair, Charles N. & Qiao, Liang, 2022. "Do people maximize quantiles?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 22-40.
    13. Gueye, Mamadou & Quérou, Nicolas & Soubeyran, Raphael, 2020. "Social preferences and coordination: An experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 26-54.
    14. Naranjo, Maria A. & Alpízar, Francisco & Martinsson, Peter, 2019. "Alternatives for Risk Elicitation in the Field: Evidence from Coffee Farmers in Costa Rica," EfD Discussion Paper 19-21, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.
    15. Giuseppe Attanasi & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Valentina Rotondi & Daria Vigani, 2018. "Lottery- and survey-based risk attitudes linked through a multichoice elicitation task," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(3), pages 341-372, May.
    16. Holzmeister, Felix & Stefan, Matthias, 2019. "The Risk Elicitation Puzzle Revisited: Across-Methods (In)consistency?," OSF Preprints pj9u2, Center for Open Science.
    17. 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.
    18. Gary Charness & Thomas Garcia & Theo Offerman & Marie Claire Villeval, 2020. "Do measures of risk attitude in the laboratory predict behavior under risk in and outside of the laboratory?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 99-123, April.
    19. Daniele Vignoli & Alessandra Minello & Giacomo Bazzani & Camilla Matera & Chiara Rapallini, 2022. "Narratives of the Future Affect Fertility: Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 38(1), pages 93-124, March.
    20. Gangadharan, Lata & Grossman, Philip J. & Xue, Nina, 2024. "Belief elicitation under competing motivations: Does it matter how you ask?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Risk attitudes; risk representation; laboratory experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making

    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:psl:moneta:2022:14. 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: Carlo D'Ippoliti (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.economiacivile.it .

    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.