Psychological Processes in Financial Decision-Making: a Consumer Perspective
Psychological Processes in Financial Decision-making: a Consumer Perspective
Intuitive Compounding: Framing, Temporal Perspective, and Expertise
Eric Eisenstein, Cornell University
Stephen J. Hoch, the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Many important financial decisions hinge on a proper understanding of compound interest. In three experiments, we explored the psychological underpinnings of consumer estimation of compound interest. Specifically, we examined the effects of negative vs. positive framing (i.e., debt vs. investments), differences between retrospective and prospective compounding, and the effects of financial expertise on accuracy. Results revealed that most people anchor on simple interest, resulting in enormous errors. A small subset of very accurate subjects used the “rule of 72.” A short training procedure debiased consumers by teaching the rule of 72. These results have consequences for major financial decisions.
Choosing for the Long Run: Making Tradeoffs in Multi-period Borrowing
Suzanne Shu, SMU Cox School of Business
This paper extends the research on intertemporal choice by asking how attributes other than discount rates influence multi-period borrowing decisions. Both normative and behavioral models of intertemporal choice have assumed that consumer choices are driven by an individual discount rate. However, I hypothesize that consumers often choose between loans in a way that is inconsistent with both the normative economic and behavioral models of discounting. A set of three studies is presented that examine choices between loan payment schedules to determine whether people are attending to interest rates or to other attributes when choosing between loans.
Investors Can’t Choose Their Fund and Feel Good, Too
Katherine Burson, University of Michigan
Simona Botti, Cornell University
Perceptions of relative skill are important when consumers decide if they can make their own choices or if they need expert assistance. We explore the effects of outcome (positive or negative) and agent (self or expert) on perceptions of relative ability and satisfaction. We find that the expert is rated as more able when the outcome is good and less able when the outcome is bad: Expert’s choice outcomes are scrutinized more than the choice process. When choices are made for oneself, however, the outcome does not matter: Participants rate their ability the same no matter what the choice outcome.
Session Chair: Eric M. Eisenstein and Discussion Leader: Stephen J. Hoch (2006) ,"Psychological Processes in Financial Decision-Making: a Consumer Perspective", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 33, eds. Connie Pechmann and Linda Price, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 403-405.
Session Chair: Eric M. Eisenstein, Johnson School of Management, Cornell University
Discussion Leader: Stephen J. Hoch, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 33 | 2006
R7. How and Why Life Transition Influences Brand Extension Evaluation
lei su, Hong Kong Baptist University
Alokparna (Sonia) Monga, Rutgers University, USA
Yuwei Jiang, Hong Kong Polytechic University
Does a Blurry Background Make a High Roller? The Effects of Blurry versus Sharp Backgrounds on Consumers’ Risk-Taking Behavior
Yoonho Jin, INSEAD, Singapore
Amitava Chattopadhyay, INSEAD, Singapore
R6. The Anatomy of a Rival: The Influence of Inequity and Resentment on Rival Brands
Diego Alvarado-Karste, University of North Texas
Blair Kidwell, University of North Texas