IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/beexfi/v29y2021ics2214635020303737.html

Two selves and two minds in a longitudinal survey of risk attitudes

Author

Listed:
  • Campara, Jessica
  • Da Costa, Newton
  • Matsushita, Raul
  • Da Silva, Sergio

Abstract

We examine how individual metacognitive differences and the two selves – the​ experiencing and remembering selves – are related to individual risk attitudes. To track how the experiencing self makes judgments, participants in an experiment are primed over six weeks with macroeconomic and political news in an ecologically relevant period of a presidential election. Every Friday, the participants indicate their willingness to take risks at the moment. In Week 7, all participants are asked to rate the total experience of the six weeks. Rather than reporting hedonimeter totals, they show duration neglect and only the final moment matters for the retrospective judgment. Moreover, individual risk tolerance is higher when assessed by the remembering self than when judged by the experiencing self. Also, higher metacognitive ability is associated with higher levels of risk tolerance. However, participants of higher metacognitive ability still cannot avoid the System 1 bias of duration neglect. This is the first empirical work explicitly relating the two selves and Systems 1 and 2 thinking processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Campara, Jessica & Da Costa, Newton & Matsushita, Raul & Da Silva, Sergio, 2021. "Two selves and two minds in a longitudinal survey of risk attitudes," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:beexfi:v:29:y:2021:i:c:s2214635020303737
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbef.2020.100444
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214635020303737
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jbef.2020.100444?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. Daniel Kahneman & Peter P. Wakker & Rakesh Sarin, 1997. "Back to Bentham? Explorations of Experienced Utility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 375-406.
    2. Grable, John & Lytton, Ruth H., 1999. "Financial risk tolerance revisited: the development of a risk assessment instrument," Financial Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 163-181.
    3. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2010. "Are Risk Aversion and Impatience Related to Cognitive Ability?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 1238-1260, June.
    4. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & Benjamin Enke & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2018. "Global Evidence on Economic Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(4), pages 1645-1692.
    5. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    6. Robert B. Barsky & F. Thomas Juster & Miles S. Kimball & Matthew D. Shapiro, 1997. "Preference Parameters and Behavioral Heterogeneity: An Experimental Approach in the Health and Retirement Study," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 537-579.
    7. Daniel J. Benjamin & Sebastian A. Brown & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2013. "Who Is ‘Behavioral’? Cognitive Ability And Anomalous Preferences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(6), pages 1231-1255, December.
    8. Alessandro Bucciol & Raffaele Miniaci, 2018. "Financial Risk Propensity, Business Cycles and Perceived Risk Exposure," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 80(1), pages 160-183, February.
    9. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & Benjamin Enke & David B. Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2017. "Global Evidence on Economic Preferences," NBER Working Papers 23943, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Guiso, Luigi & Sapienza, Paola & Zingales, Luigi, 2018. "Time varying risk aversion," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(3), pages 403-421.
    11. Guillermo Campitelli & Martin Labollita, 2010. "Correlations of cognitive reflection with judgments and choices," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(3), pages 182-191, June.
    12. Taylor, Matthew P., 2016. "Are high-ability individuals really more tolerant of risk? A test of the relationship between risk aversion and cognitive ability," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 136-147.
    13. Lau Lilleholt, 2019. "Cognitive ability and risk aversion: A systematic review and meta analysis," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(3), pages 234-279, May.
    14. Gregoriou, Andros & Healy, Jerome V. & Le, Huong, 2019. "Prospect theory and stock returns: A seven factor pricing model," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 315-322.
    15. Hannah Schildberg-Hörisch, 2018. "Are Risk Preferences Stable?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 32(2), pages 135-154, Spring.
    16. Dohmen, Thomas & Lehmann, Hartmut & Pignatti, Norberto, 2016. "Time-varying individual risk attitudes over the Great Recession: A comparison of Germany and Ukraine," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 182-200.
    17. Catherine Eckel & Philip Grossman & Cathleen Johnson & Angela Oliveira & Christian Rojas & Rick Wilson, 2012. "School environment and risk preferences: Experimental evidence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 265-292, December.
    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. Plotkina, Daria & Hoffmann, Arvid O.I. & Roger, Patrick & D’Hondt, Catherine, 2024. "Gender vs. personality: The role of masculinity in explaining cognitive style," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    2. Carton, F.L. & Xiong, H. & McCarthy, J.B., 2022. "Drivers of financial well-being in socio-economic deprived populations," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(C).
    3. Plotkina, Daria & Hoffmann, Arvid O.I. & Roger, Patrick & D’Hondt, Catherine, 2024. "Gender vs. personality: The role of masculinity in explaining cognitive style," LIDAM Reprints LFIN 2024010, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain Finance (LFIN).
    4. Sergio Da Silva & Raul Matsushita & Eduarda Korzenowski, 2024. "Why Is Friday Better than Sunday?," Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, , vol. 36(1), pages 98-104, January.
    5. Sergio Da Silva & Werley Cordeiro, 2023. "Marriage, Quarrels, and Lovemaking," Studies in Microeconomics, , vol. 11(3), pages 382-388, December.
    6. Humaira Asad & Iqra Toqeer & Khalid Mahmood, 2021. "A qualitative phenomenological exploration of social mood and investors’ risk tolerance in an emerging economy," Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 14(1), pages 189-211, August.
    7. Daria Plotkina & Arvid O.I. Hoffmann & Patrick Roger & Catherine D’hondt, 2024. "Gender vs. personality: The role of masculinity in explaining cognitive style," Post-Print hal-04758211, HAL.

    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. Insoo Cho & Peter F. Orazem, 2021. "How endogenous risk preferences and sample selection affect analysis of firm survival," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1309-1332, April.
    2. Cheng, Lingguo & Lu, Yunfeng, 2024. "Risk attitudes across the life course: Evidence from China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    3. Fu, Jingcheng & Zhang, Xing & Zhong, Songfa, 2025. "Hedging-based scoring rules for multiple-choice questions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 237(C).
    4. Jonathan Chapman & Erik Snowberg & Stephanie Wang & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Loss Attitudes in the U.S. Population: Evidence from Dynamically Optimized Sequential Experimentation (DOSE)," CESifo Working Paper Series 7262, CESifo.
    5. Mika Akesaka & Peter Eibich & Chie Hanaoka & Hitoshi Shigeoka, 2023. "Temporal Instability of Risk Preference among the Poor: Evidence from Payday Cycles," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 68-99, October.
    6. Dawoon Jung & Tushar Bharati & Seungwoo Chin, 2021. "Does Education Affect Time Preference? Evidence from Indonesia," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 69(4), pages 1451-1499.
    7. 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).
    8. Amador, Luis & Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Espín, Antonio M. & Garcia, Teresa & Hernández, Ana, 2019. "Consistent and inconsistent choices under uncertainty: The role of cognitive abilities," MPRA Paper 95178, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. González Chapela, Jorge, 2020. "Patience goes a long way: Evidence from Spain," MPRA Paper 98711, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Hu, Youxin & Huang, Shaoqing & Jiang, Ming & Xu, Xiaoshu, 2024. "Traffic violations and economic preferences: Evidence from full-time drivers of a large transportation network company in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    11. Francesco D’Acunto & Daniel Hoang & Maritta Paloviita & Michael Weber, 2023. "IQ, Expectations, and Choice," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 90(5), pages 2292-2325.
    12. Nicolas Eber & Patrick Roger & Tristan Roger, 2024. "Finance and intelligence: An overview of the literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 503-554, April.
    13. Amador-Hidalgo, Luis & Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Espín, Antonio M. & García-Muñoz, Teresa & Hernández-Román, Ana, 2021. "Cognitive abilities and risk-taking: Errors, not preferences," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    14. Stefania Bortolotti & Thomas Dohmen & Hartmut Lehmann & Frauke Meyer & Norberto Pignatti & Karine Torosyan, 2020. "Patience, Cognitive Abilities, and Cognitive Effort: Survey and Experimental Evidence from a Developing Country," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 048, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    15. Fairley, Kim & Sanfey, Alan G., 2020. "The role of demographics on adolescents’ preferences for risk, ambiguity, and prudence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 784-796.
    16. Alfonso, Antonio & Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Jorrat, Diego & Prissé, Benjamin & Francisco, María José Vázquez-De, 2025. "The baking of preferences throughout the high school," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    17. Harry Pickard & Thomas Dohmen & Bert Landeghem, 2024. "Inequality and risk preference," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 69(2), pages 191-217, October.
    18. Jorge González Chapela, 2022. "Is there a patience premium on migration?," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 63(4), pages 2025-2055, October.
    19. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2018. "On the Relationship between Cognitive Ability and Risk Preference," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 32(2), pages 115-134, Spring.
    20. Islam, Asad & Lee, Wang-Sheng & Nicholas, Aaron, 2021. "The Effects of Chess Instruction on Academic and Non-cognitive Outcomes: Field Experimental Evidence from a Developing Country," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • I31 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General Welfare, Well-Being

    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:eee:beexfi:v:29:y:2021:i:c:s2214635020303737. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-behavioral-and-experimental-finance .

    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.