投资风险判断中的有形偏差

IF 3.4 2区 管理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Pub Date : 2022-07-01 DOI:10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104150
Özgün Atasoy , Remi Trudel , Theodore J. Noseworthy , Patrick J. Kaufmann
{"title":"投资风险判断中的有形偏差","authors":"Özgün Atasoy ,&nbsp;Remi Trudel ,&nbsp;Theodore J. Noseworthy ,&nbsp;Patrick J. Kaufmann","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The most popular ways of holding wealth include tangible investments such as real estate and gold, and intangible investments such as stocks and mutual funds. Five experiments revealed a tangibility bias whereby the tangibility of an investment or tangibility cues linked to an investment provides a false sense of financial safety. When focusing on avoiding risk, investors indicated a higher willingness to sell the stocks of companies that invest in intangible versus tangible assets (Study 1). The greater perceived permanence of tangible versus intangible assets appeared to underlie the difference in market risk assessments. Respondents judged the same asset as riskier when it was framed as intangible (Study 2), and differences in perceived permanence mediated this effect. Increasing perceived permanence independently of tangibility led to lower market risk assessments of commodity futures (Study 3). Tangibility prompts that leave asset tangibility unchanged were sufficient to lower risk judgments (studies 4 and 5). The differences in market risk assessments were not due to a general preference for tangible assets (Study 4) or differences in familiarity, complexity, or understanding of the asset types (studies 2 and 5).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597822000346/pdfft?md5=65ff842411b5e145e724c40bdec71e95&pid=1-s2.0-S0749597822000346-main.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tangibility bias in investment risk judgments\",\"authors\":\"Özgün Atasoy ,&nbsp;Remi Trudel ,&nbsp;Theodore J. Noseworthy ,&nbsp;Patrick J. Kaufmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104150\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The most popular ways of holding wealth include tangible investments such as real estate and gold, and intangible investments such as stocks and mutual funds. Five experiments revealed a tangibility bias whereby the tangibility of an investment or tangibility cues linked to an investment provides a false sense of financial safety. When focusing on avoiding risk, investors indicated a higher willingness to sell the stocks of companies that invest in intangible versus tangible assets (Study 1). The greater perceived permanence of tangible versus intangible assets appeared to underlie the difference in market risk assessments. Respondents judged the same asset as riskier when it was framed as intangible (Study 2), and differences in perceived permanence mediated this effect. Increasing perceived permanence independently of tangibility led to lower market risk assessments of commodity futures (Study 3). Tangibility prompts that leave asset tangibility unchanged were sufficient to lower risk judgments (studies 4 and 5). The differences in market risk assessments were not due to a general preference for tangible assets (Study 4) or differences in familiarity, complexity, or understanding of the asset types (studies 2 and 5).</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48442,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597822000346/pdfft?md5=65ff842411b5e145e724c40bdec71e95&pid=1-s2.0-S0749597822000346-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597822000346\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597822000346","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

最受欢迎的财富持有方式包括房地产和黄金等有形投资,以及股票和共同基金等无形投资。五个实验揭示了一种有形偏见,即投资的有形性或与投资相关的有形线索提供了一种虚假的财务安全感。当专注于规避风险时,投资者表示更愿意出售投资于无形资产的公司的股票,而不是有形资产(研究1)。有形资产与无形资产的更大感知持久性似乎是市场风险评估差异的基础。当同样的资产被定义为无形资产时,被调查者认为风险更大(研究2),而感知持久性的差异介导了这种影响。增加独立于有形性的感知持久性导致商品期货的市场风险评估降低(研究3)。有形性提示保持资产有形性不变足以降低风险判断(研究4和5)。市场风险评估的差异不是由于对有形资产的普遍偏好(研究4)或熟悉程度、复杂性或对资产类型的理解差异(研究2和5)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Tangibility bias in investment risk judgments

The most popular ways of holding wealth include tangible investments such as real estate and gold, and intangible investments such as stocks and mutual funds. Five experiments revealed a tangibility bias whereby the tangibility of an investment or tangibility cues linked to an investment provides a false sense of financial safety. When focusing on avoiding risk, investors indicated a higher willingness to sell the stocks of companies that invest in intangible versus tangible assets (Study 1). The greater perceived permanence of tangible versus intangible assets appeared to underlie the difference in market risk assessments. Respondents judged the same asset as riskier when it was framed as intangible (Study 2), and differences in perceived permanence mediated this effect. Increasing perceived permanence independently of tangibility led to lower market risk assessments of commodity futures (Study 3). Tangibility prompts that leave asset tangibility unchanged were sufficient to lower risk judgments (studies 4 and 5). The differences in market risk assessments were not due to a general preference for tangible assets (Study 4) or differences in familiarity, complexity, or understanding of the asset types (studies 2 and 5).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
4.30%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes publishes fundamental research in organizational behavior, organizational psychology, and human cognition, judgment, and decision-making. The journal features articles that present original empirical research, theory development, meta-analysis, and methodological advancements relevant to the substantive domains served by the journal. Topics covered by the journal include perception, cognition, judgment, attitudes, emotion, well-being, motivation, choice, and performance. We are interested in articles that investigate these topics as they pertain to individuals, dyads, groups, and other social collectives. For each topic, we place a premium on articles that make fundamental and substantial contributions to understanding psychological processes relevant to human attitudes, cognitions, and behavior in organizations. In order to be considered for publication in OBHDP a manuscript has to include the following: 1.Demonstrate an interesting behavioral/psychological phenomenon 2.Make a significant theoretical and empirical contribution to the existing literature 3.Identify and test the underlying psychological mechanism for the newly discovered behavioral/psychological phenomenon 4.Have practical implications in organizational context
期刊最新文献
Joining disconnected others reduces social identity threat in women brokers Retraction notice to “Don’t stop believing: Rituals improve performance by decreasing anxiety” [Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 137C (2016) 71–85] The confrontation effect: When users engage more with ideology-inconsistent content online A Numeracy-Task interaction model of perceived differences On time or on thin ice: How deadline violations negatively affect perceived work quality and worker evaluations
×
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