IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/v6r9n.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What Drives Risk Perception? A Global Survey with Financial Professionals and Lay People

Author

Listed:
  • Holzmeister, Felix

    (University of Innsbruck)

  • Huber, Juergen
  • Kirchler, Michael
  • Lindner, Florian
  • Weitzel, Utz
  • Zeisberger, Stefan

Abstract

Risk is an integral part of many economic decisions, and is vitally important in finance. Despite extensiveresearch on decision-making under risk, little is known about how risks are actually perceived by financialprofessionals, the key players in global financial markets. In a large-scale survey experiment with 2,213 financeprofessionals and 4,559 lay people in nine countries representing approx. 50% of the world’s population and morethan 60% of the world’s gross domestic product, we expose participants to return distributions with equalexpected return and we systematically vary the distributions’ next three higher moments. Of these, skewnessis the only moment that systematically affects financial professionals’ perception of financial risk. Strikingly,variance does not influence risk perception, even though return volatility is the most common risk measurein finance in both academia and the industry. When testing other, compound risk measures, the probabilityto experience losses is the strongest predictor of what is perceived as being risky. Analyzing professionals’propensity to invest, skewness and loss probability have strong predictive power too. However, volatility andkurtosis also have some additional effect on participants’ willingness to invest. Our results are very similarfor lay people, and they are robust across and within countries with different cultural backgrounds as wellas for different job fields of professionals.

Suggested Citation

  • Holzmeister, Felix & Huber, Juergen & Kirchler, Michael & Lindner, Florian & Weitzel, Utz & Zeisberger, Stefan, 2019. "What Drives Risk Perception? A Global Survey with Financial Professionals and Lay People," OSF Preprints v6r9n, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:v6r9n
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/v6r9n
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5c9bb667aae20b0018b030be/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/v6r9n?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Unser, Matthias, 2000. "Lower partial moments as measures of perceived risk: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 253-280, June.
    2. Sachse, Katharina & Jungermann, Helmut & Belting, Julia M., 2012. "Investment risk – The perspective of individual investors," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 437-447.
    3. Marco Cipriani & Antonio Guarino, 2009. "Herd Behavior in Financial Markets: An Experiment with Financial Market Professionals," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 7(1), pages 206-233, March.
    4. James S. Dyer & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1982. "Relative Risk Aversion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(8), pages 875-886, August.
    5. 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.
    6. Oliver Gloede & Lukas Menkhoff, 2014. "Financial Professionals' Overconfidence: Is It Experience, Function, or Attitude?," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 20(2), pages 236-269, March.
    7. Robert N. Bontempo & William P. Bottom & Elke U. Weber, 1997. "Cross‐Cultural Differences in Risk Perception: A Model‐Based Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 479-488, August.
    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. Ghysels, Eric & Santa-Clara, Pedro & Valkanov, Rossen, 2005. "There is a risk-return trade-off after all," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 509-548, June.
    10. Bali, Turan G. & Cakici, Nusret & Whitelaw, Robert F., 2011. "Maxing out: Stocks as lotteries and the cross-section of expected returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 427-446, February.
    11. Jennifer Conrad & Robert F. Dittmar & Eric Ghysels, 2013. "Ex Ante Skewness and Expected Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 68(1), pages 85-124, February.
    12. Alexander Puetz & Stefan Ruenzi, 2011. "Overconfidence Among Professional Investors: Evidence from Mutual Fund Managers," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(5-6), pages 684-712, June.
    13. Sebastian Ebert & Daniel Wiesen, 2011. "Testing for Prudence and Skewness Seeking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(7), pages 1334-1349, July.
    14. Levy, Haim & Levy, Moshe, 2009. "The safety first expected utility model: Experimental evidence and economic implications," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1494-1506, August.
    15. Markku Kaustia & Eeva Alho & Vesa Puttonen, 2008. "How Much Does Expertise Reduce Behavioral Biases? The Case of Anchoring Effects in Stock Return Estimates," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 37(3), pages 391-412, September.
    16. Dhami, Sanjit, 2016. "The Foundations of Behavioral Economic Analysis," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198715535.
    17. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    18. repec:grz:wpsses:2017-05 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Brian Boyer & Todd Mitton & Keith Vorkink, 2010. "Expected Idiosyncratic Skewness," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 23(1), pages 169-202, January.
    20. 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.
    21. Enrico Diecidue & Jeroen van de Ven, 2008. "Aspiration Level, Probability Of Success And Failure, And Expected Utility," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 49(2), pages 683-700, May.
    22. Veld, Chris & Veld-Merkoulova, Yulia V., 2008. "The risk perceptions of individual investors," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 226-252, April.
    23. 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.
    24. Jonathan E. Alevy & Michael S. Haigh & John A. List, 2007. "Information Cascades: Evidence from a Field Experiment with Financial Market Professionals," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 62(1), pages 151-180, February.
    25. Markus Glaser & Zwetelina Iliewa & Martin Weber, 2019. "Thinking about Prices versus Thinking about Returns in Financial Markets," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 74(6), pages 2997-3039, December.
    26. William F. Sharpe, 1964. "Capital Asset Prices: A Theory Of Market Equilibrium Under Conditions Of Risk," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 19(3), pages 425-442, September.
    27. Keller, L. Robin & Sarin, Rakesh K. & Weber, Martin, 1986. "Empirical investigation of some properties of the perceived riskiness of gambles," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 114-130, August.
    28. 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.
    29. Alexander Klos & Elke U. Weber & Martin Weber, 2005. "Investment Decisions and Time Horizon: Risk Perception and Risk Behavior in Repeated Gambles," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(12), pages 1777-1790, December.
    30. Ebert, Sebastian, 2015. "On skewed risks in economic models and experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 85-97.
    31. Elke U. Weber & Richard A. Milliman, 1997. "Perceived Risk Attitudes: Relating Risk Perception to Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(2), pages 123-144, February.
    32. Martin Weber & Elke U. Weber & Alen Nosić, 2013. "Who takes Risks When and Why: Determinants of Changes in Investor Risk Taking," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 17(3), pages 847-883.
    33. Peter C. Fishburn, 1984. "Foundations of Risk Measurement. I. Risk As Probable Loss," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 396-406, April.
    34. Daniel G. Goldstein & Eric J. Johnson & William F. Sharpe, 2008. "Choosing Outcomes versus Choosing Products: Consumer-Focused Retirement Investment Advice," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(3), pages 440-456, August.
    35. David E. Bell, 1995. "Risk, Return, and Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(1), pages 23-30, January.
    36. Elke U. Weber & Christopher Hsee, 1998. "Cross-Cultural Differences in Risk Perception, but Cross-Cultural Similarities in Attitudes Towards Perceived Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(9), pages 1205-1217, 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. repec:grz:wpsses:2017-05 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Huber, Jürgen & Palan, Stefan & Zeisberger, Stefan, 2019. "Does investor risk perception drive asset prices in markets? Experimental evidence," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    3. Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus & Köster, Mats, 2017. "Local thinking and skewness preferences," DICE Discussion Papers 248, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    4. Sara Jonsson & Inga-Lill Söderberg, 2018. "Investigating explanatory theories on laypeople’s risk perception of personal economic collapse in a bank crisis – the Cyprus case," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(6), pages 763-779, June.
    5. Bottasso, Anna & Duchêne, Sébastien & Guerci, Eric & Hanaki, Nobuyuki & Noussair, Charles N., 2022. "Higher order risk attitudes of financial experts," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(C).
    6. Martin Holmén & Felix Holzmeister & Michael Kirchler & Matthias Stefan & Erik Wengström, 2023. "Economic Preferences and Personality Traits Among Finance Professionals and the General Population," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 133(656), pages 2949-2977.
    7. Payzan-LeNestour, Elise & Pradier, Lionnel & Putniņš, Tālis J., 2023. "Biased risk perceptions: Evidence from the laboratory and financial markets," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    8. Adam Zaremba & Jacob Koby Shemer, 2018. "Price-Based Investment Strategies," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-319-91530-2, December.
    9. Kim, Eung-Bin & Byun, Suk-Joon, 2021. "Risk, ambiguity, and equity premium: International evidence," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 321-335.
    10. Felix Holzmeister & Martin Holmén & Michael Kirchler & Matthias Stefan & Erik Wengström, 2023. "Delegation Decisions in Finance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(8), pages 4828-4844, August.
    11. Dennis Vrecko & Thomas Langer, 2013. "What Are Investors Willing to Pay to Customize Their Investment Product?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(8), pages 1855-1870, August.
    12. 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.
    13. Stefan Zeisberger, 2022. "Do people care about loss probabilities?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(2), pages 185-213, October.
    14. Markus Dertwinkel-Kalt & Mats Köster, 2020. "Salience and Skewness Preferences [Risk-neutral Firms can Extract Unbounded Profits from Consumers with Prospect Theory Preferences]," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(5), pages 2057-2107.
    15. Matteo Benuzzi & Matteo Ploner, 2024. "Skewness-seeking behavior and financial investments," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 129-165, March.
    16. Arvanitis, Stelios & Scaillet, Olivier & Topaloglou, Nikolas, 2020. "Spanning analysis of stock market anomalies under prospect stochastic dominance," Working Papers unige:134101, University of Geneva, Geneva School of Economics and Management.
    17. 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.
    18. Adam Farago & Martin Holmén & Felix Holzmeister & Michael Kirchler & Michael Razen, 2019. "Cognitive Skills and Economic Preferences in the Fund Industry," Working Papers 2019-16, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    19. Wang, Junbo & Wu, Chunchi & Zhong, Xiaoling, 2021. "Prospect theory and stock returns: Evidence from foreign share markets," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    20. Cao, Ji & Rieger, Marc Oliver & Zhao, Lei, 2023. "Safety first, loss probability, and the cross section of expected stock returns," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 345-369.
    21. Michael Razen & Michael Kirchler & Utz Weitzel, 2019. "Determinants Of Prepaid Systems Of Healthcare Financing - A Worldwide Country-Level Perspective," Working Papers 2019-12, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • O10 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - General
    • O15 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Economic Development: Human Resources; Human Development; Income Distribution; Migration
    • O18 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Urban, Rural, Regional, and Transportation Analysis; Housing; Infrastructure

    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:osf:osfxxx:v6r9n. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    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.