IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/rwirep/656.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Naïve advice in financial decision making: Hidden costs of a free offer

Author

Listed:
  • Sprenger, Julia

Abstract

The current study examines individual decision making in the field of personal finance. A laboratory experiment investigates the way naïve advice influences the decisionmaking process. When advice is offered on demand, participants prefer expert over naïve advice. Although naïve advice is only half the price of expert advice, demand for naïve advice is negligible. When naïve advice is given unsolicited, however, it has nevertheless a strong impact on the decision process by lowering engagement in information acquisition and promoting a passive adoption of the recommended option. While high levels of financial literacy buffer this effect, issuing a warning does not. In case compliance with naïve advice leads to a low decision quality and the saving in information acquisition costs does not make up for this effect, the free offer of naïve advice produces financial losses. This can be interpreted as hidden costs of free naïve advice resulting from a switch in information strategy. People with low financial literacy are most vulnerable to this effect.

Suggested Citation

  • Sprenger, Julia, 2016. "Naïve advice in financial decision making: Hidden costs of a free offer," Ruhr Economic Papers 656, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:rwirep:656
    DOI: 10.4419/86788762
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/148308/1/873682815.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4419/86788762?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Annamaria Lusardi & Olivia Mitchell, 2007. "Financial Literacy and Retirement Planning: New Evidence from the Rand American Life Panel," Working Papers wp157, University of Michigan, Michigan Retirement Research Center.
    2. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    3. Bucher-Koenen, Tabea & Koenen, Johannes, 2015. "Do Seemingly Smarter Consumers Get Better Advice?," MEA discussion paper series 201501, Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA) at the Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy.
    4. Yaniv, Ilan, 2004. "Receiving other people's advice: Influence and benefit," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 1-13, January.
    5. Jan B Engelmann & C Monica Capra & Charles Noussair & Gregory S Berns, 2009. "Expert Financial Advice Neurobiologically “Offloads” Financial Decision-Making under Risk," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(3), pages 1-14, March.
    6. Gino, Francesca, 2008. "Do we listen to advice just because we paid for it? The impact of advice cost on its use," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 234-245, November.
    7. Harvey, Nigel & Fischer, Ilan, 1997. "Taking Advice: Accepting Help, Improving Judgment, and Sharing Responsibility," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 117-133, May.
    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. Sprenger, Julia, 2016. "Financial literacy: A barrier to seek financial advice but not a shield against following it," Ruhr Economic Papers 634, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    2. Gehrig, Thomas & Güth, Werner & Leví0nský, René & Popova, Vera, 2010. "On the evolution of professional consulting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 113-126, October.
    3. Palmeira, Mauricio, 2020. "Advice in the presence of external cues: The impact of conflicting judgments on perceptions of expertise," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 82-96.
    4. Kausel, Edgar E. & Culbertson, Satoris S. & Leiva, Pedro I. & Slaughter, Jerel E. & Jackson, Alexander T., 2015. "Too arrogant for their own good? Why and when narcissists dismiss advice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 33-50.
    5. Alison Wood Brooks & Francesca Gino & Maurice E. Schweitzer, 2015. "Smart People Ask for (My) Advice: Seeking Advice Boosts Perceptions of Competence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1421-1435, June.
    6. Sah, Sunita, 2019. "Understanding the (perverse) effects of disclosing conflicts of interest: A direct replication study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 75(PA).
    7. Effron, Daniel A. & Miller, Dale T., 2015. "Do as I say, not as I’ve done: Suffering for a misdeed reduces the hypocrisy of advising others against it," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 16-32.
    8. Yoon, Haewon & Scopelliti, Irene & Morewedge, Carey K., 2021. "Decision making can be improved through observational learning," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 155-188.
    9. Blunden, Hayley & Logg, Jennifer M. & Brooks, Alison Wood & John, Leslie K. & Gino, Francesca, 2019. "Seeker beware: The interpersonal costs of ignoring advice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 83-100.
    10. Philipp Ecken & Richard Pibernik, 2016. "Hit or Miss: What Leads Experts to Take Advice for Long-Term Judgments?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(7), pages 2002-2021, July.
    11. Gino, Francesca & Shang, Jen & Croson, Rachel, 2009. "The impact of information from similar or different advisors on judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 287-302, March.
    12. See, Kelly E. & Morrison, Elizabeth W. & Rothman, Naomi B. & Soll, Jack B., 2011. "The detrimental effects of power on confidence, advice taking, and accuracy," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 272-285.
    13. Lucas C. Coffman & Alexander Gotthard-Real, 2019. "Moral Perceptions of Advised Actions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(8), pages 3904-3927, August.
    14. Patt, Anthony G. & Bowles, Hannah Riley & Cash, David W., 2006. "Mechanisms for Enhancing the Credibility of an Adviser: Prepayment and Aligned Incentives," Working Paper Series rwp06-010, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    15. Logg, Jennifer M. & Minson, Julia A. & Moore, Don A., 2019. "Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 90-103.
    16. Özalp Özer & Upender Subramanian & Yu Wang, 2018. "Information Sharing, Advice Provision, or Delegation: What Leads to Higher Trust and Trustworthiness?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 474-493, January.
    17. Amaral, Christopher & Kolsarici, Ceren, 2020. "The financial advice puzzle: The role of consumer heterogeneity in the advisor choice," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    18. Bonaccio, Silvia & Dalal, Reeshad S., 2006. "Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 127-151, November.
    19. Jodlbauer, Barbara & Jonas, Eva, 2011. "Forecasting clients' reactions: How does the perception of strategic behavior influence the acceptance of advice?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 121-133, January.
    20. Andrea F.M. Martinangeli & Biljana Meiske, 2022. "The influence premium of monetary rank," Working Papers tax-mpg-rps-2022-08, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Financial literacy; financial decision making; experiment; naïve advice;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • G02 - Financial Economics - - General - - - Behavioral Finance: Underlying Principles
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:zbw:rwirep:656. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rwiesde.html .

    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.