Judgments of ethically questionable financial practices: a new perspective

IF 1.9 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE Review of Behavioral Finance Pub Date : 2022-05-13 DOI:10.1108/rbf-09-2021-0185
Daphne Sobolev, J. Clunie
{"title":"Judgments of ethically questionable financial practices: a new perspective","authors":"Daphne Sobolev, J. Clunie","doi":"10.1108/rbf-09-2021-0185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose Research has suggested that ethics judgments should be made from an impartial perspective. However, people are often partial about their money. This study aims to investigate the extent to which perspectives – the perspective of those who can gain from the use of a financial practice and the perspective of those who can incur losses due to it – affect lay people’s ethics and legality judgments of the practice. In addition, it asks which factors influence their investment intentions.Design/methodology/approach The study uses a between-participant scenario experiment, in which participants are presented with cases of predatory trading and front running. Each participant is asked to take either a gain or loss perspective through the formulation of the presented cases. Subsequently, all participants make ethics, legality and investment intention judgments.Findings The authors establish that perspectives significantly affect people’s ethics judgments and, to a lesser extent, their legality judgments. People’s investment intentions depend on their perspectives, too, as well as on their financial considerations, ethics judgments, legality judgments and trust.Originality/value Research has focused on relatively stable determinants of people’s ethics judgments of financial practices. This paper shows that the situational prospect of profit can sway lay people’s judgments. When people take the gain perspective, they judge financial practices to be more ethical than when they take the loss perspective. Furthermore, people’s perspectives can distort their legality judgments and influence their investment intentions.","PeriodicalId":44559,"journal":{"name":"Review of Behavioral Finance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Behavioral Finance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/rbf-09-2021-0185","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose Research has suggested that ethics judgments should be made from an impartial perspective. However, people are often partial about their money. This study aims to investigate the extent to which perspectives – the perspective of those who can gain from the use of a financial practice and the perspective of those who can incur losses due to it – affect lay people’s ethics and legality judgments of the practice. In addition, it asks which factors influence their investment intentions.Design/methodology/approach The study uses a between-participant scenario experiment, in which participants are presented with cases of predatory trading and front running. Each participant is asked to take either a gain or loss perspective through the formulation of the presented cases. Subsequently, all participants make ethics, legality and investment intention judgments.Findings The authors establish that perspectives significantly affect people’s ethics judgments and, to a lesser extent, their legality judgments. People’s investment intentions depend on their perspectives, too, as well as on their financial considerations, ethics judgments, legality judgments and trust.Originality/value Research has focused on relatively stable determinants of people’s ethics judgments of financial practices. This paper shows that the situational prospect of profit can sway lay people’s judgments. When people take the gain perspective, they judge financial practices to be more ethical than when they take the loss perspective. Furthermore, people’s perspectives can distort their legality judgments and influence their investment intentions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
道德上有问题的金融行为的判断:一个新的视角
研究表明,伦理判断应该从公正的角度进行。然而,人们往往对他们的钱有偏见。本研究的目的是调查在何种程度上的观点-那些可以从使用金融实践中获益的人的观点和那些可能因此而蒙受损失的人的观点-影响非专业人士对该实践的道德和合法性判断。此外,它还询问了哪些因素影响了他们的投资意愿。设计/方法/方法本研究采用了参与者之间的场景实验,向参与者展示掠夺性交易和抢先交易的案例。每个参与者都被要求采取一个获得或损失的角度通过提出的情况的制定。随后,所有参与者进行道德、合法性和投资意向判断。研究发现,观点显著影响人们的伦理判断,并在较小程度上影响人们的合法性判断。人们的投资意向也取决于他们的观点,以及他们的财务考虑、道德判断、合法性判断和信任。独创性/价值研究关注的是人们对金融实践伦理判断的相对稳定的决定因素。本文表明,盈利的情景前景会影响外行人的判断。当人们从收益的角度出发时,他们会认为财务行为比从损失的角度出发时更合乎道德。此外,人们的观点会扭曲他们的合法性判断,影响他们的投资意愿。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Review of Behavioral Finance
Review of Behavioral Finance BUSINESS, FINANCE-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
5.00%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: Review of Behavioral Finance publishes high quality original peer-reviewed articles in the area of behavioural finance. The RBF focus is on Behavioural Finance but with a very broad lens looking at how the behavioural attributes of the decision makers influence the financial structure of a company, investors’ portfolios, and the functioning of financial markets. High quality empirical, experimental and/or theoretical research articles as well as well executed literature review articles are considered for publication in the journal.
期刊最新文献
Deciphering CEO disclosure tone inconsistency: a behavioural exploration Lottery stocks in Brazil: investigating risk premium and investor behavior Do executive facial trustworthiness have impact on IPO underpricing in the Indonesia stock exchange? Global reversal strategy: equilibrium of endogenous trading? Global reversal strategy: equilibrium of endogenous trading?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1