IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/applec/v52y2020i56p6090-6099.html

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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edward T. Cokely & Colleen M. Kelley, 2009. "Cognitive abilities and superior decision making under risk: A protocol analysis and process model evaluation," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(1), pages 20-33, February.
    2. Ola Andersson & Håkan J. Holm & Jean-Robert Tyran & Erik Wengström, 2016. "Risk Aversion Relates to Cognitive Ability: Preferences Or Noise?," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 14(5), pages 1129-1154.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Huck, Steffen & Weizsacker, Georg, 1999. "Risk, complexity, and deviations from expected-value maximization: Results of a lottery choice experiment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 699-715, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Annamarie Lusardi & Olivia S. Mitchell, 2005. "Financial Literacy and Planning: Implications for Retirement Wellbeing," Working Papers wp108, University of Michigan, Michigan Retirement Research Center.
    9. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    10. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2012. "Risk Preferences Are Not Time Preferences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(7), pages 3357-3376, December.
    11. Matthew Taylor, 2013. "Bias and brains: Risk aversion and cognitive ability across real and hypothetical settings," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 299-320, June.
    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. Taylor, Matthew P., 2020. "Heterogeneous motivation and cognitive ability in the lab," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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).
    5. 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.
    6. Prakashan Chellattan Veettil & Yashodha Yashodha & Joseph Vecci, 2025. "Hypothetical bias and cognitive ability: Farmers' preference for crop insurance products†," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 107(3), pages 888-924, May.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Willadsen, Helene & Zaccagni, Sarah & Piovesan, Marco & Wengström, Erik, 2024. "Measures of cognitive ability and choice inconsistency," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 495-506.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Corgnet, Brice & DeSantis, Mark & Porter, David, 2021. "Information aggregation and the cognitive make-up of market participants," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    13. Tiziana Assenza & Alberto Cardaci & Domenico Delli Gatti, 2019. "Perceived Wealth, Cognitive Sophistication and Behavioral Inattention," CESifo Working Paper Series 7992, CESifo.
    14. Joshua Zonca & Giorgio Coricelli & Luca Polonio, 2020. "Gaze patterns disclose the link between cognitive reflection and sophistication in strategic interaction," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(2), pages 230-245, March.
    15. Zonca, Joshua & Coricelli, Giorgio & Polonio, Luca, 2020. "Gaze patterns disclose the link between cognitive reflection and sophistication in strategic interaction," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(2), pages 230-245, March.
    16. Dustin P. Calvillo & Jessica N. Burgeno, 2015. "Cognitive reflection predicts the acceptance of unfair ultimatum game offers," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(4), pages 332-341, July.
    17. 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.
    18. Emma Boswell Dean & Frank Schilbach & Heather Schofield, 2017. "Poverty and Cognitive Function," NBER Chapters, in: The Economics of Poverty Traps, pages 57-118, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. François Desmoulins-Lebeault & Luc Meunier, 2018. "Moment Risks: Investment for Self and for a Firm," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 242-266, December.
    20. Allred, Sarah & Duffy, Sean & Smith, John, 2016. "Cognitive load and strategic sophistication," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 162-178.

    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.