IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/inn/wpaper/2021-15.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Impact of Presentation Format and Choice Architecture on Portfolio Allocations: Experimental Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Sebastian Bachler
  • Felix Holzmeister
  • Michael Razen
  • Matthias Stefan

Abstract

The question of optimal presentation format and choice architecture for investment decisions has gained momentum among researchers, policy makers, and practitioners alike. Motivated by the question how to provide information to investors in a way to improve financial decision-making, we conduct an investment experiment. We implement a 2x2 factorial design to test the effect of presentation format (graphical vs. tabular) and choice architecture/complexity (asset selection vs. predefined portfolios) on decision-making quality. Overall, our results suggest a differential effect of presentation format and choice architecture: Firstly, we find that the graphical presentation format lowers decision-making quality when the environment is more complex (asset selection). Secondly, within graphical presentation, decision quality is higher when the choice architecture is simplified (predefined portfolios). In addition, we find that a simplified choice architecture leads to higher risk-adjusted returns and reduces the relevance of fluid intelligence and numeracy for decision-making quality.

Suggested Citation

  • Sebastian Bachler & Felix Holzmeister & Michael Razen & Matthias Stefan, 2021. "The Impact of Presentation Format and Choice Architecture on Portfolio Allocations: Experimental Evidence," Working Papers 2021-15, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    • Handle: RePEc:inn:wpaper:2021-15
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www2.uibk.ac.at/downloads/c9821000/wpaper/2021-15.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hazel Bateman & Christine Eckert & John Geweke & Jordan Louviere & Stephen Satchell & Susan Thorp, 2016. "Risk Presentation and Portfolio Choice," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 20(1), pages 201-229.
    2. Federico Echenique & Sangmok Lee & Matthew Shum, 2011. "The Money Pump as a Measure of Revealed Preference Violations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 119(6), pages 1201-1223.
    3. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    4. Annamaria Lusardi, 2008. "Household Saving Behavior: The Role of Financial Literacy, Information, and Financial Education Programs," NBER Working Papers 13824, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Andreas Oehler & Stefan Wendt, 2017. "Good Consumer Information: the Information Paradigm at its (Dead) End?," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 179-191, June.
    6. 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).
    7. Holzmeister, Felix & Holmén, Martin & Kirchler, Michael & Stefan, Matthias & Wengström, Erik, 2019. "Delegated Decision-Making in Finance," OSF Preprints 3umdf, Center for Open Science.
    8. William Remus, 1984. "An Empirical Investigation of the Impact of Graphical and Tabular Data Presentations on Decision Making," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 533-542, May.
    9. 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.
    10. Samiran Banerjee & James Murphy, 2009. "A simplified test for preference rationality of two-commodity choice," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(2), pages 252-252, June.
    11. Yaron Azrieli & Christopher P. Chambers & Paul J. Healy, 2018. "Incentives in Experiments: A Theoretical Analysis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(4), pages 1472-1503.
    12. William Remus, 1987. "A Study of Graphical and Tabular Displays and Their Interaction with Environmental Complexity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(9), pages 1200-1204, September.
    13. 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.
    14. Bateman, Hazel & Eckert, Christine & Geweke, John & Louviere, Jordan & Satchell, Stephen & Thorp, Susan, 2014. "Financial competence, risk presentation and retirement portfolio preferences," Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 27-61, January.
    15. Carlsson, Fredrik & Raun Mørkbak, Morten & Bøye Olsen, Søren, 2010. "The first time is the hardest: A test of ordering effects in choice experiments," Working Papers in Economics 470, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    16. Desanctis, Gerardine & Jarvenpaa, Sirkka L., 1989. "Graphical presentation of accounting data for financial forecasting: An experimental investigation," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 14(5-6), pages 509-525, October.
    17. Hadar, Josef & Russell, William R, 1969. "Rules for Ordering Uncertain Prospects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(1), pages 25-34, March.
    18. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    19. Robin Cubitt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 1998. "On the Validity of the Random Lottery Incentive System," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(2), pages 115-131, September.
    20. 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.
    21. F. Douglas Foster & Juliana Ng & Marvin Wee, 2015. "Presentation Format and Financial Literacy: Accessibility and Assessability of Retirement Savings Statements," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(3), pages 519-549, November.
    22. Bock, Olaf & Baetge, Ingmar & Nicklisch, Andreas, 2014. "hroot: Hamburg Registration and Organization Online Tool," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 117-120.
    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. Zvonimir Bašić & Parampreet C. Bindra & Daniela Glätzle-Rützler & Angelo Romano & Matthias Sutter & Claudia Zoller, 2021. "The Roots of Cooperation," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 097, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    2. Daniel Gründler & Eric Mayer & Johann Scharler, 2023. "Monetary Policy Announcements, Information Shocks, and Exchange Rate Dynamics," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 341-369, April.
    3. Angerer, Silvia & Bolvashenkova, Jana & Glätzle-Rützler, Daniela & Lergetporer, Philipp & Sutter, Matthias, 2023. "Children’s patience and school-track choices several years later: Linking experimental and field data," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).

    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. Felix Holzmeister & Matthias Stefan, 2021. "The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 593-616, June.
    2. 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.
    3. Holzmeister, Felix & Stefan, Matthias, 2019. "The Risk Elicitation Puzzle Revisited: Across-Methods (In)consistency?," OSF Preprints pj9u2, Center for Open Science.
    4. Felix Holzmeister & Matthias Stefan, 2019. "The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?," Working Papers 2019-19, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    5. Matthias Stefan & Martin Holmén & Felix Holzmeister & Michael Kirchler & Erik Wengström, 2022. "You can’t always get what you want—An experiment on finance professionals' decisions for others," Working Papers 2022-02, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    6. Kling, Luisa & König-Kersting, Christian & Trautmann, Stefan T., 2019. "Investment Preferences and Risk Perception: Financial Agents versus Clients," Working Papers 0674, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    7. Lindner, Florian & Kirchler, Michael & Rosenkranz, Stephanie & Weitzel, Utz, 2021. "Social Motives and Risk-Taking in Investment Decisions," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    8. Kling, Luisa & König-Kersting, Christian & Trautmann, Stefan T., 2023. "Investment preferences and risk perception: Financial agents versus clients," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    9. Florian Lindner & Michael Kirchler & Stephanie Rosenkranz & Utz Weitzel, 2019. "Social Status and Risk-Taking in Investment Decisions," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2019_07, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    10. Holzmeister, Felix & Holmén, Martin & Kirchler, Michael & Stefan, Matthias & Wengström, Erik, 2019. "Delegated Decision-Making in Finance," OSF Preprints 3umdf, Center for Open Science.
    11. Laura Hueber & Rene Schwaiger, 2021. "Debiasing Through Experience Sampling: The Case of Myopic Loss Aversion," Working Papers 2021-01, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    12. Huber, Christoph & Huber, Jürgen & Kirchler, Michael, 2022. "Volatility shocks and investment behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 56-70.
    13. Florian Engl & Arno Riedl & Roberto Weber, 2021. "Spillover Effects of Institutions on Cooperative Behavior, Preferences, and Beliefs," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(4), pages 261-299, November.
    14. Utz Weitzel & Christoph Huber & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler & Florian Lindner & Julia Rose & Lauren Cohen, 2020. "Bubbles and Financial Professionals," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 33(6), pages 2659-2696.
    15. 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.
    16. Dato, Simon & Grunewald, Andreas & Kräkel, Matthias & Müller, Daniel, 2016. "Asymmetric employer information, promotions, and the wage policy of firms," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 273-300.
    17. Huber, Christoph & Huber, Jürgen, 2020. "Bad bankers no more? Truth-telling and (dis)honesty in the finance industry," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 472-493.
    18. Huber, Christoph & Huber, Jürgen & Kirchler, Michael, 2021. "Market shocks and professionals’ investment behavior – Evidence from the COVID-19 crash," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    19. Mechtenberg, Lydia & Muehlheusser, Gerd & Roider, Andreas, 2020. "Whistleblower protection: Theory and experimental evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Investment Decision; Presentation Format; Choice Architecture; Decision-Making Quality; Experimental Finance;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
    • G41 - Financial Economics - - Behavioral Finance - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making in Financial Markets
    • G50 - Financial Economics - - Household Finance - - - General

    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:inn:wpaper:2021-15. 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: Janette Walde (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fuibkat.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.