IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/applec/v52y2020i56p6090-6099.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the relationship between financial literacy and choice behaviours under different risk elicitation methods in surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Geng Peng
  • Xiaodan Zhang
  • Fang Liu
  • Wenyi Lu
  • Yongxing Wang
  • Qiang Yin

Abstract

A few pieces of literature based primarily on experiments have proved that the risk elicitation instrument can affect the measurement of subject’s risk preferences. Using the China Household Finance Survey data, we focus on the risk choice behaviours of respondents when they choose between two different elicitation methods that have different complexities and a different number of options, respectively. Specifically, one is simpler but with more options, and another is more complex but with fewer options. Moreover, we further discuss the impact of two methods on the relationship between financial literacy and risk attitude. The theoretical and empirical studies indicate that the respondents will be more risk-loving in the elicitation method with simpler and more options because of computation avoiding and noisy behaviours. Also, this paper finds that financial literacy has a positive relation with risk preferences, and low-literacy respondents have more irrational drift behaviours of risk choice. Our results suggest that it is vital to tradeoff the complexity and number of options for risk elicitation methods in surveys.

Suggested Citation

  • Geng Peng & Xiaodan Zhang & Fang Liu & Wenyi Lu & Yongxing Wang & Qiang Yin, 2020. "On the relationship between financial literacy and choice behaviours under different risk elicitation methods in surveys," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(56), pages 6090-6099, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:applec:v:52:y:2020:i:56:p:6090-6099
    DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2020.1784385
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00036846.2020.1784385
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00036846.2020.1784385?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lusardi, Annamaria & Tufano, Peter, 2015. "Debt literacy, financial experiences, and overindebtedness," Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(4), pages 332-368, October.
    2. Annamaria Lusardi & Olivia S. Mitchell, 2005. "Financial Literacy and Planning: Implications for Retirement Wellbeing," CeRP Working Papers 46, Center for Research on Pensions and Welfare Policies, Turin (Italy).
    3. Oechssler, Jörg & Roider, Andreas & Schmitz, Patrick W., 2009. "Cognitive abilities and behavioral biases," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 147-152, October.
    4. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2012. "Risk Preferences Are Not Time Preferences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(7), pages 3357-3376, December.
    5. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    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. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2019. "How related are risk preferences and time preferences?," CLTS Working Papers 4/19, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 16 Oct 2019.
    2. Oberrauch, Luis & Kaiser, Tim, 2022. "Cognitive ability, financial literacy, and narrow bracketing in time-preference elicitation," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    3. Ruffle, Bradley J. & Wilson, Anne E., 2019. "Tat will tell: Tattoos and time preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 566-585.
    4. Muñoz-Murillo, Melisa & Álvarez-Franco, Pilar B. & Restrepo-Tobón, Diego A., 2020. "The role of cognitive abilities on financial literacy: New experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    5. Nolte, Sven & Schneider, Judith C., 2017. "Don’t lapse into temptation: a behavioral explanation for policy surrender," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 12-27.
    6. Mark Schneider, 2016. "Dual Process Utility Theory: A Model of Decisions Under Risk and Over Time," Working Papers 16-23, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    7. Lucy F. Ackert & Richard Deaves & Jennifer Miele & Quang Nguyen, 2020. "Are Time Preference and Risk Preference Associated with Cognitive Intelligence and Emotional Intelligence?," Journal of Behavioral Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(2), pages 136-156, April.
    8. 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.
    9. Thomas Meissner & David Albrecht, 2022. "Debt Aversion: Theory and Measurement," Papers 2207.07538, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2022.
    10. Groneck, Max & Ludwig, Alexander & Zimper, Alexander, 2016. "A life-cycle model with ambiguous survival beliefs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 137-180.
    11. Corgnet, Brice & DeSantis, Mark & Porter, David, 2020. "The distribution of information and the price efficiency of markets," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    12. Michalis Drouvelis & Julian C. Jamison, 2015. "Selecting public goods institutions: Who likes to punish and reward?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 82(2), pages 501-534, October.
    13. Neyse, Levent & Bosworth, Steven & Ring, Patrick & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2016. "Overconfidence, Incentives and Digit Ratio," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 130145, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    14. 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.
    15. Natalia Mishagina & Claude Montmarquette, 2018. "The Demand for Economic Policies, Beliefs, and Willingness-to-Pay: The Case of the Minimum Wage Policy in Quebec," CIRANO Project Reports 2018rp-14, CIRANO.
    16. Lusardi, Annamaria & Mitchell, Olivia S., 2011. "Financial literacy around the world: an overview," Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(4), pages 497-508, October.
    17. Eizo Akiyama & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Ryuichiro Ishikawa, 2017. "It is Not Just Confusion! Strategic Uncertainty in An Experimental Asset Market," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(605), pages 563-580, October.
    18. Antoni Bosch-Domènech & Pablo Brañas-Garza & Antonio M. Espín, 2013. "Fetal testosterone (2D:4D) as predictor of cognitive reflection," Economics Working Papers 1371, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    19. Ray Saadaoui Mallek & Mohamed Albaity, 2019. "Individual differences and cognitive reflection across gender and nationality the case of the United Arab Emirates," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 1567965-156, January.
    20. Kai Duttle & Keigo Inukai, 2015. "Complexity Aversion: Influences of Cognitive Abilities, Culture and System of Thought," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(2), pages 846-855.

    More about this item

    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:taf:applec:v:52:y:2020:i:56:p:6090-6099. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEC20 .

    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.