• No results found

The Relationship between Income, Subjective Money Value and Financial Risk Behavior in Adolescents

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "The Relationship between Income, Subjective Money Value and Financial Risk Behavior in Adolescents"

Copied!
33
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

The relationship between income,

subjective money value and financial

risk behavior in adolescents

L.L. Wattel University of Amsterdam Contact: 11008334 lunawatt@hotmail.com Submitted on: 12-06-2020

Supervised and assessed by: dr. B.R. Braams

b.r.braams@vu.nl

dr. A. Ploeger

(2)

Abstract

During adolescence risk behavior is increased compared to other life phases. While other domains of risk taking have been extensively studied, little research is available on adolescent financial risk taking. It is important to study this to gain insight and to provide better financial education for adolescents. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the underlying factors of adolescent financial risk behavior. The considered factors were given and earned income and subjective money value. Financial risk behavior was assessed with a self-reported and a task-based measurement. The results showed that given income was negatively

associated with subjective money value, while earned income showed no effect. Subjective money value was positively associated with self-reported financial risk behavior. No effect of subjective money value on task-based financial risk behavior was found. The findings

demonstrate that income and subjective money value are underlying factors of financial risk behavior in adolescents. This insight might be used for educational purposes and deepen the understanding of the establishment of financial behavior in adults. Directions for future research are proposed.

(3)

Table of Contents

Abstract ... 2

1. Introduction ... 4

1.1 Relevance and delimitation ... 4

1.2 Earned and Given Income ... 5

1.3 Subjective Money Value ... 6

1.4 Measuring Financial Risk Behavior ... 7

1.5 Aim and Research Question ... 7

2. Materials and Methods ... 9

2.1. Participants ... 9

2.2. Procedure ... 9

2.3. Measures of Given and Earned Income ... 10

2.4 Measure of Subjective Money Value ... 10

2.5 Measure of Self-Reported Financial Risk Taking ... 10

2.6 Measure of task-based Financial Risk Taking ... 11

2.7 Measure of Win and Loss Experience on the BART ... 12

2.8 Statistical Analysis ... 13

3. Results ... 14

3.1 Given/earned income and SMV ... 14

3.2 SMV and self-reported financial risk behavior ... 14

3.3 SMV and task-based financial risk behavior ... 14

3.4 Self-reported and task-based financial risk behavior ... 14

3.5 Performance and win/loss experience on the BART ... 15

4. Discussion ... 17

4.1 Given/earned income and SMV ... 17

4.2 SMV and self-reported financial risk behavior ... 18

4.3 SMV and task-based financial risk behavior ... 19

4.4 Self-reported and task-based financial risk behavior ... 19

4.5 Performance and win/loss experience on the BART ... 20

4.6 Future Research ... 20

(4)

1. Introduction

1.1 Relevance and delimitation

Evaluations, judgements and decisions are constantly being made in daily live. One of the factors that influences many everyday decisions is risk. Risk behavior can be defined as behavior “in which the outcomes remain uncertain with the possibility of an identifiable negative outcome” (Irwin, 1993). During adolescence risk behavior is increased as compared to other life phases (Arnett, 1996; Pharo et al., 2011). Adolescence can be defined as the phase in life between childhood and adulthood ranging from 10 to 24 years of age (Sawyer et al., 2018). While many studies have focused on adolescent risk behavior in the health and social domains (e.g., sexual behavior, substance use, peer pressure; Braams et al., 2019; Khurana et al., 2018; Pharo et al., 2011), less research is available on financial risk behavior in adolescents.

It is important to gain insight into adolescents’ financial perceptions and risk behaviors for two reasons. The first is the frequent occurrence of money problems in adolescence. It has been found that adolescents have poor financial literacy compared to adults (Erner et al., 2016) and show high impulse buying tendencies (Dibley & Baker, 2001). Adolescents form an important segment of the consumer market that is constantly targeted by innovative marketing methods (Lin & Lin, 2005). Therefore, it is relevant to improve

adolescents’ financial education, for which understanding of their views and behaviors is necessary. It would help institutions like the Nationaal Instituut voor Budgetvoorlichting (NIBUD) to provide families with advice on financial matters such as pocket money. The second reason to study adolescents’ financial perception and behavior is that it would provide insight in how adult financial behavior is developed. Adolescence is considered a crucial period for cognitive and social development. Hence, to understand adult financial perception

(5)

and behavior, it is fundamental to study how they establish throughout adolescence. Contrary to the research in adolescents, ample research on financial risk behavior is available in adults.

Different models describing adults’ financial decision-making have been proposed from the early twentieth century onward. A distinction can be made between the classical economic models and the behavioral models. Classical economic models assume that people make rational decisions based on stochastic probabilities (Stigler, 1950), while behavioral financial models assume that people are not rational and base decisions on subjective probabilities (Aydemir & Aren, 2017; Tversky & Kahneman, 1979). The notion that people depend on subjective rather than stochastic probabilities is supported by empirical research. Both personal characteristics and contextual effects have been found to influence financial risk taking (Anbar & Melek, 2010; Grable & Joo, 2004). In the following, two of these contextual factors are discussed (i.e., income and subjective money value), as well as the measurements of financial risk behavior.

1.2 Earned and Given Income

There are opposing findings on the influence of income on financial risk behavior in adults. On the one hand, several studies have found a positive association between income and the willingness to engage in financial risk behaviors (Courbage et al., 2017; Finke & Huston, 2003; Hallahan et al., 2004). On the other hand, differing findings indicate that people with high income take fewer financial risks than people with low income (Bosch-Domènech & Silvestre, 2006; Gregory, 1980). When considering income of adolescents, there is an

important difference with adults: a significant part of adolescents’ income is commonly given to them by their caregivers. Concerning this topic, Lin & Lin (2005) found that the amount of

(6)

considered the presence of a part-time job, not the amount of income that was earned. In adults, the difference between the effects of earned money and windfall gains (i.e.,

unexpected additions to income; Black et al., 2012) has been studied. These studies show that people tend to spend windfall gains more easily than earned money (Arkes et al., 1994; Carlsson et al., 2009). Moreover, Trump et al. (2015) found that people tend to make riskier financial choices when they view the source of money as more distant from themselves (i.e., given vs. self-earned). However, these studies on adults studied money that was unexpectedly given, while adolescents’ allowances are expectedly given. It remains unclear how the amount given and/or earned money might affect the financial perception and behavior of adolescents.

1.3 Subjective Money Value

A second factor to consider in studying financial risk behavior is subjective money value. As the previously discussed behavioral financial models indicated (Aydemir & Aren, 2017; Tversky & Kahneman, 1979), people do not make rational financial decisions. Rather than valuing money based on its absolute value, people tend to value money relative to a subjective reference point (Tversky & Kahneman, 1979). In this thesis, subjective money value is

defined as the relative value money has to an individual. Brandstätter & Brandstätter (1996) found that subjective money value is dependent on both income and money attitude (e.g., the perception of money as a source of power). Studies in adults found that money attitude is associated with financial risk behavior such as impulse buying (Fenton‐O'Creevy & Furnham, 2019; Hanley & Wilhelm, 1992; Khare, 2016). The same association between money attitude and impulse buying was found in adolescent studies (Hong, 2005; Lin & Lin, 2005; Lai, 2010). As money attitude underlies subjective money value (Brandstätter & Brandstätter, 1996), it is likely that subjective money value is also associated with financial risk behavior.

(7)

1.4 Measuring Financial Risk Behavior

The aforementioned adolescent studies all looked at impulse buying (Hong, 2005; Lin & Lin, 2005; Lai, 2010). This is only one form of financial risk behavior; there are various other ways to assess financial risk behavior. A main distinction can be made between self-reported (e.g., a questionnaire) and task-based measures (e.g., a behavioral task). Advantages of self-reported measures are that they are generally easy and cheap to conduct and inquire about real-life situations. They are however subject to response biases depending on, for example, the framing of the questions and social desirability of the answers (Furnham, 1986). Contrary to self-reported measures, task-based measures are not affected by response biases, but they do not test real-life situations. Although there are no response biases in task-based measures, there could be an interplay between task performance and task experience. For example, how a participant experiences a task could affect their performance on the task, or vice versa (Gray, 2001; Herrington et al., 2005). For a profound understanding of financial risk

behavior, combining the strengths of both self-reported and task-based measures is desirable.

1.5 Aim and Research Question

The aim of the current study is to investigate the underlying factors of financial risk behavior in adolescents. The research question is:

What is the relationship between income, subjective money value and financial risk behavior in adolescents?

Financial risk behavior will be studied using both self-reported and task-based measures. Based on the discussed literature, the following hypotheses were formulated:

(8)

(iv) self-reported and task-based financial risk behavior are correlated; and

(v) task performance and win/loss experience are correlated in task-based financial risk behavior.

Self-reported financial risk behavior will be assessed using an adjusted version of the financial Domain Specific Risk-Taking scale (DOSPERT; Weber et al., 2002). The Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART; Lejuez et al., 2002) will be used to assess task-based risk behavior.

(9)

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The subjects for this study were selected from an ongoing Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) study at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam called the BrainGames project. Participants were recruited via social media, flyers, posters and guest lessons at high schools in and

around Amsterdam. The inclusion criteria were an age of 16 or 17 years; 4th or 5th grade of the highest Dutch high school levels (Voorbereidend Wetenschappelijk Onderwijs or Hoger Algemeen Voortegezet Onderwijs); and a signed informed consent of both the participant and a caregiver. Participants with psychiatric diagnoses and/or MRI contraindications (e.g., braces, left-handedness) were excluded. Participants received €50 for participation and an additional bonus of a maximum of €75 depending on their task performance. A total of 28 subjects (10 male) with a mean age of 16.79 years (SD = .59) participated in the study. Due to incomplete data, the sample size varied slightly between the performed analyses. See

appendix A for the precise sample sizes and means per analysis.

2.2. Procedure

Participants were invited for three testing sessions at the Spinoza Centre Amsterdam, separated by one week. Each session took approximately 2.5 hours. After the screening procedure and a test session, participants performed three behavioral tasks in an MRI-scanner. During the last hour of each session, participants completed questionnaires. Only the first session of one behavioral task is considered in the current study (i.e., the BART, see paragraph 2.6). The remaining data for this thesis were retrieved from the questionnaires during the first and second session.

(10)

2.3. Measures of Given and Earned Income

Data on monthly pocket money, clothing allowances and side-job earnings were obtained through a questionnaire (see appendix B), expressed in Euros (€). Monthly pocket money and clothing allowance were considered given income, with an average of € 79.85 (SD = 117.05). Earned income was equated to the participants’ monthly side-job earnings with an average of € 151.30 (SD = 201.07).

2.4 Measure of Subjective Money Value

To determine subjective money value (SMV), participants were asked to rate 10 sums of money ranging between € 0.05 and € 145.00 (see appendix C). The sums of money were rated on a scale from 0 (not a lot of money) to 100 (a lot of money). The average of the 10 ratings was the continuous measure for SMV per participant. The mean SMV was 39.25 (SD = 14.13).

2.5 Measure of Self-Reported Financial Risk Taking

The Domain Specific Risk-Taking scale (DOSPERT; Weber et al., 2002) assesses risk taking based on 40 items, scored on a 7-point rating scale ranging from 1 (extremely unlikely) to 7 (extremely likely). The 40 items are subdivided into 5 domains: health/safety, ethical, social, recreational and financial. Although different versions of the DOSPERT scale have been validated in adults (Blais & Weber, 2006; Weber et al., 2002), no universally validated version is available for adolescents. Therefore, an adjusted 39-item version of the DOSPERT scale was used in the current study. The adjustment entailed that the statements were better tailored to adolescents, for example “spending a small amount of your savings on a rare collection item (e.g., a soccer card) without knowing it is real” instead of “investing 5% of your annual income in a very speculative stock”. Of the 39 items, only the 7 items assessing

(11)

financial risk behavior were considered here (see appendix D). The total score on the 7 financial items of the adjusted DOSPERT comprised the self-reported measure of financial risk behavior. The average score on the DOSPERT-financial was 15.27 (SD = 5.96).

2.6 Measure of task-based Financial Risk Taking

The Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) is a laboratory-based behavioral measure of risk taking (Lejuez et al., 2002) that has been validated in adolescents (Lejuez et al., 2003). During this task, a simulation of a balloon is shown on a computer screen. Two buttons for inflation and money collection are present. When the button for inflation is pressed, the simulated balloon grows and 10 cents are added to the temporary bank (see figure 1). However, if the balloon is inflated past its popping point, the simulated balloon pops and all money from the temporary bank is lost (see figure 1A). The participant is allowed to stop inflating and press the collection-button at any point during a trial, in which case all money is transferred from the temporary to the total bank (see figure 1B). After each pop or money collection, a new trial starts. In the present study, the button for inflation was operated by the right index finger and the button for collection by the right middle finger. Participants

performed 24 trials. As the financial domain is of interest in this thesis, the cumulative total bank in Euros was the outcome for task-based financial risk behavior. The average BART bank was € 4.14 (SD = .59).

(12)

Figure 1. Example trials of the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). (A) Example of an explosion trial: for each pump (blue button, operated by the right index finger) 10 cents are added to the current value. When the balloon is pumped past its popping point, all money acquired with that balloon is lost. (B) Example of a collection trial: when money collection is chosen (yellow button, operated by the right middle finger), all money acquired with that balloon is transferred to the total bank. Figure based on Schonberg et al. (2012).

2.7 Measure of Win and Loss Experience on the BART

To assess win/loss experience, participants completed a survey after performing the BART (see appendix E). The statements in the survey were rated on a scale from 0 (very unpleasant) to 100 (very pleasant). Four statements were asked on win experience (e.g., “€ 0.60 is

transferred to the total bank”) as well as four statements on loss experience (e.g., “a balloon of € 0.50 pops”). The average score on the four statements about winning comprised an average win experience of 72.80 (SD = 10.65). The same was done for loss experience, which

(13)

2.8 Statistical Analysis

The statistical analyses were performed in Rstudio (version 1.2.5033). Regressions were used to test the hypotheses on the effects of given and earned income on subjective money value (i), the effect of subjective money value on self-reported financial risk behavior (ii) and the effect of subjective money value on task-based financial risk behavior (iii). Where outliers presented themselves, a robust regression was performed. Outliers were defined as datapoints exceeding 1.5 times the interquartile range. By attributing less weight to extreme datapoints, a robust regression provides reliable results without losing data. Correlations were performed to test the hypotheses on the association between self-reported and task-based financial risk behavior (iv) and the association between task performance and win/loss experience in task-based financial risk behavior (v). Where the assumptions of the Pearson correlation were violated, a Spearman correlation was performed. A priori calculations indicated that, for a medium effect size, the current sample of 28 subjects is insufficient to achieve a power of 0.8. For that, a minimum of 65 subjects is needed in analysis (i); 53 subjects in analyses (ii) and (iii); and 85 subjects in analyses (iv) and (v). This illustrates that BrainGames is an ongoing project and the sample size is not yet complete. Because the five hypotheses were tested in the same population sample, a post-hoc False Discovery Rate correction was applied to correct for multiple testing.

(14)

3. Results

3.1 Given/earned income and SMV

The effect of given and earned income on SMV was tested with a robust regression. The analysis showed that given income was significantly related to SMV (B = -.06, t(24) = -2.62, p = .031). As can be seen in figure 2, the effect found was a negative association: the higher the given income, the lower the SMV. For earned income, no significant effect on SMV was found (B = -.01, t(24) = -.44, p = .656; see appendix F1).

3.2 SMV and self-reported financial risk behavior

A robust regression was used to test the effect of SMV on self-reported financial risk behavior. The regression revealed a significant effect of SMV on the DOSPERT-financial score (B = .16, t(24) = 2.40, p = .042). Figure 3 shows that this was a positive association, in which the DOSPERT-financial score increased as SMV increased.

3.3 SMV and task-based financial risk behavior

The effect of SMV on task-based financial risk behavior was tested with a robust regression as well. It was found that SMV was not significantly related to the BART bank (B = .01, t(25) = .66, p = .604; see appendix F2).

3.4 Self-reported and task-based financial risk behavior

A Spearman correlation was performed to test the association between self-reported and task-based financial risk behavior. Participants’ scores on the BART bank and the DOSPERT-financial were positively correlated (rs = .46, p = .036; see appendix F3). A high score on the BART bank was associated with a high score on the DOSPERT-financial and vice versa.

(15)

3.5 Performance and win/loss experience on the BART

The association between performance and win/loss experience in task-based risk behavior was tested with a Pearson correlation. On the one hand, the BART bank was found to be negatively correlated with win experience on the BART (r = -.55, p = .011; see appendix F4). On the other hand, it was found that the BART bank was positively correlated with loss experience on the BART (r = .66, p = .002; see appendix F5). The scales used to measure win and loss experience were the same, where a higher rating indicated more pleasant experience (see paragraph 2.7). Thus, a higher score on the BART bank is associated with a less intense experience of winning and losing on the BART, and vice versa.

(16)

Figure 2. Depicted is the effect of given monthly income on subjective money value (B = -.06, t(24) = -2.62, p = .031). The shadowing indicates the 95% confidence interval.

Figure 3. Depicted is the effect of subjective money value on the financial Domain Specific Risk-Taking score (B = .16, t(24) = 2.40, p = .042). The shadowing indicates the 95% confidence interval.

(17)

4. Discussion

The aim of the current study was to investigate the relationship between income, subjective money value and financial risk behavior in adolescents. The results showed that higher given monthly income was associated with lower subjective money value, and that earned monthly income did not affect subjective money value. Additionally, higher subjective money value was found to be associated with higher self-reported financial risk behavior. No significant effect of subjective money value on task-based financial risk behavior was found. The remaining analyses revealed that self-reported and task-based financial risk behavior were correlated, and that higher scores on the BART bank were correlated with less intense experiences of both winning and losing on the BART. In conclusion, the current work indicates that income and subjective money value are explicative factors for financial risk behavior in adolescents. This finding is relevant for the financial education of adolescents, as well as for understanding how adult financial behavior establishes. Below, the individual results of the five analyses are discussed, followed by suggestions for future research.

4.1 Given/earned income and SMV

As expected, it was found that subjective money value decreased as given income increased. This corroborates with the adult classical and behavioral models mentioned in paragraph 1.1, which proposed the same relationship between income and subjective value of money (Stigler 1950; Tversky & Kahneman, 1979). Interestingly, this was only true for given income; earned income showed no effect on adolescent subjective money value. The difference found

between given and earned money is in accordance with previous findings for adults (Arkes et al., 1994; Carlsson et al., 2009; Trump et al., 2015). However, these adult studies were

(18)

the current study looked at given money that was expected rather than unexpected and at adolescents rather than at adults, different explanations are proposed. The first explanation concerns the adolescents’ source of given income: their primary caregivers. How adolescents perceive money is dependent on factors determined by their caregivers, such as the level of their allowance and the conditions under which it is given (e.g., at set points in time, when their homework is done, or whenever insisted upon). How their caregivers value money could well reflect on adolescents’ own subjective money value. This is not the case for earned money, as this is generally paid by a non-related employer under market conditions. A second explanation can be found in adolescents’ evaluation of earned money. Adolescents commonly get paid a fixed sum per hour. This means that their earnings generally increase proportionally to their worktime. This could prevent them from perceiving higher amounts of earned money as less valuable per Euro, because they had to work just as hard for the 1000th Euro as they had to for the first Euro. By contrast, no work needs to be performed for given money,

possibly explaining why adolescents perceive higher amounts of given money as less valuable per Euro.

4.2 SMV and self-reported financial risk behavior

The second finding, that subjective money value is positively associated with self-reported financial risk taking, adds to existing literature. Previous findings indicated that money attitude affects impulse buying in adolescents (Hong, 2005; Lin & Lin, 2005; Lai, 2010). Although money attitude is not the same as subjective money value, high money attitude (i.e., strongly perceiving it as a source of power) is likely to coincide with attributing high value to money. For adults, it has already been found that money attitude underlies subjective money value (Brandstätter & Brandstätter, 1996). Additionally, the current study and previous studies show concurring findings with different measures for financial risk behavior (i.e., the

(19)

DOSPERT-financial and impulse buying; Hong, 2005; Lin & Lin, 2005; Lai, 2010). Thus, the results found tally with studies already done for both adults and adolescents and contribute to the understanding of financial risk behavior.

4.3 SMV and task-based financial risk behavior

Although no effect of subjective money value on task-based financial risk behavior was found, it is unlikely that this association does not exist, considering the significant effect on self-reported financial risk behavior. The lack of significant findings might be explained on two accounts. The first account is that the indicator used (i.e., the total bank on the BART) may not have measured the assumed construct (i.e., financial risk behavior). The authors who developed the BART indicated that the BART assesses risk taking (Lejuez et al., 2002). It is possible that the BART is indicative of a general risk taking, or at least other than financial risk taking. To test whether this is the case, an alternative task should be used to measure task-based financial risk behavior. The second explanation is the small number of

participants. According to the a priori power analysis (see paragraph 2.8), 53 subjects were needed to achieve a power of 0.8. As only slightly over half of the number of participants needed performed the task, it is possible that number was insufficient for finding a significant effect.

4.4 Self-reported and task-based financial risk behavior

In the fourth analysis, a correlation between self-reported and task-based financial risk behavior was found. This is in support of the findings by Lejuez et al. (2003), who validated the BART for adolescents by comparing it to self-reported measures of risk behavior.

(20)

version of the DOSPERT might be a representative measure of adolescent risk behavior. Nonetheless, the lack of a direct validation of the adjusted DOSPERT version remains a limitation of the present study.

4.5 Performance and win/loss experience on the BART

The last finding was the correlation between performance and win/loss experience on the BART. As is inherent to a correlation, the effect might be two-sided. The correlation may have been found because win/loss experience is dependent on performance. This would mean that low performance caused more intense win experiences because they were rare, and more intense loss experiences because they were cumulative to the losses already suffered.

Inversely, the correlation may also have been found because win/loss experiences affect performance. It has been established that emotion can influence cognition (e.g., Gray, 2001; Herrington et al., 2005). Therefore, it is possible that participants who did not have intense win- or loss experiences, performed better because they experienced less emotional effect on cognitive performance. It is conceivable that both directions play a role in the correlation between task performance and win/loss experience.

4.6 Future Research

A direction for future research might be found in the different effects of given and earned income on subjective money value. One possibility would be to study the relationship between adolescents’ and their caregivers’ subjective money value. This would provide insight in the extent to which the financial perception of parents is adopted by their children. An alternative direction would be to study the effect of income on subjective money value for adults with different working conditions. After all, if it true that adolescents’ subjective money value is not affected by earned money because their working time increases

(21)

proportionally with their wages, this could also be true for adults paid by the hour. A comparison could be made between people working on a permanent contract and people working on an hourly payment. Another distinction could be made between people’s

profession type. As adolescents’ side-jobs typically include physical work, it is possible that adults performing physical professions experience less effect of income on subjective money value than adults with white-collar jobs (e.g., plasterer vs. lawyer).

Additionally, future research could focus on underlying factors of financial risk behavior other than income and subjective money value. Whereas both of the factors considered in this study are influenced by context, personal characteristics could also affect adolescent financial risk behavior. For example, in a larger sample it could be interesting to see whether there are gender differences, or whether personality traits such as impulsiveness could also affect adolescent financial risk behavior. As the current study covered only two factors, it is desirable to consider other factors as well to form a more complete understanding of adolescent financial risk taking.

Taken together, the findings discussed demonstrate that income and subjective money value are factors capable of explaining financial risk behavior of adolescents. The current study adds to the scarce literature on the topic and provides insight in the financial perception and behavior of adolescents. These insights might be used for educational purposes and deepen the understanding of how financial perception and behavior is established into adulthood.

(22)

References

1. Anbar, A., & Melek, E. (2010). An empirical investigation for determining of the relation between personal financial risk tolerance and demographic characteristic. Ege Akademik Bakış Dergisi, 10(2), 503-522.

2. Arkes Hal, R., Joyner Cynthia, A., Pezzo Mark, V., Gradwohl, N. J., Karen, S. J., & Eric, S. (1994). The psychology of windfall gains.

3. Arnett, J. J. (1996). Sensation seeking, aggressiveness, and adolescent reckless behavior. Personality and individual differences, 20(6), 693-702.

4. Aydemir, S. D., & Aren, S. (2017). Do the effects of individual factors

5. on financial risk-taking behavior diversify with financial literacy?. Kybernetes. 6. Black, J., Hashimzade, N., & Myles, G. (2012). A dictionary of economics. Oxford

university press.

7. Blais, A.-R., & Weber, E. U. (2006) A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations. Judgment and Decision Making, 1, 33-47.

8. Bosch-Domènech, A., & Silvestre, J. (2006). Do the wealthy risk more money? An experimental comparison. Institutions, equilibria and efficiency (pp. 95-116). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

9. Braams, B. R., Davidow, J. Y., & Somerville, L. H. (2019). Developmental patterns of change in the influence of safe and risky peer choices on risky decision‐

making. Developmental science, 22(1), e12717.

10. Brandstätter, E., & Brandstätter, H. (1996). What's money worth? Determinants of the subjective value of money. Journal of Economic Psychology, 17(4), 443-464.

11. Carlsson, F., He, H., & Martinsson, P. (2009). Easy come, easy go-The role of windfall money in lab and field experiments. rapport nr.: Working Papers in Economics 374.

(23)

12. Courbage, C., Montoliu-Montes, G., & Rey, B. (2017). How vulnerable is risk aversion to wealth, health and other risks?. In Proceedings of the 44th Seminar of the European Group of Risk and Insurance Economists (EGRIE) (No. CONFERENCE). 18-20 September 2017.

13. Dibley, A. & Baker, S. (2001), “Uncovering the links between brand choice and personal values among young British and Spanish girls”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 77-93.

14. Erner, C., Goedde-Menke, M., & Oberste, M. (2016). Financial literacy of high school students: Evidence from Germany. The Journal of Economic Education, 47(2), 95-105. 15. Fenton‐O'Creevy, M., & Furnham, A. (2019). Money attitudes, personality and chronic

impulse buying. Applied Psychology.

16. Finke, M. S., & Huston, S. J. (2003). The brighter side of financial risk: Financial risk tolerance and wealth. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 24(3), 233-256.

17. Furnham, A. (1986). Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality and individual differences, 7(3), 385-400.

18. Grable, J. E., & Joo, S. H. (2004). Environmental and biophysical factors associated with financial risk tolerance. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 15(1).

19. Gray, J. R. (2001). Emotional modulation of cognitive control: Approach– withdrawal states double-dissociate spatial from verbal two-back task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 436 – 452.

20. Gregory, N. (1980). Relative wealth and risk taking: A short note on the Friedman-Savage utility function. Journal of Political Economy, 88(6), 1226-1230.

(24)

22. Hanley, A., & Wilhelm, M. S. (1992). Compulsive buying: An exploration into self-esteem and money attitudes. Journal of economic Psychology, 13(1), 5-18.

23. Herrington, J. D., Mohanty, A., Koven, N. S., Fisher, J. E., Stewart, J. L., Banich, M. T., ... & Heller, W. (2005). Emotion-modulated performance and activity in left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Emotion, 5(2), 200.

24. Hong, E. S. (2005). A study on the money attitudes and the spending behaviors by middle, high, and college students-comparison by adolescent stage and sex. Journal of Korean Home Management Association, 23(5), 103-122.

25. Irwin, C. E. 1993. Adolescence and risk taking: How are they related?. Adolescent risk taking, 7–28. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

26. Khare, A. (2016). Money attitudes, credit card and compulsive buying behaviour: a study on Indian consumers. International Journal of Business Competition and Growth, 5(1-3), 49-71.

27. Khurana, A., Romer, D., Betancourt, L. M., & Hurt, H. (2018). Modeling trajectories of sensation seeking and impulsivity dimensions from early to late adolescence: universal trends or distinct sub-groups?. Journal of youth and adolescence, 47(9), 1992-2005. 28. Lai, C. W. (2010). How financial attitudes and practices influence the impulsive buying

behavior of college and university students. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 38(3), 373-380.

29. Lejuez, C. W., Aklin, W. M., Zvolensky, M. J., & Pedulla, C. M. (2003). Evaluation of the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) as a predictor of adolescent real-world risk-taking behaviours. Journal of adolescence, 26(4), 475-479.

30. Lejuez, C. W., Read, J. P., Kahler, C. W., Richards, J. B., Ramsey, S. E., Stuart, G. L., ... & Brown, R. A. (2002). Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8(2), 75.

(25)

31. Lin, C. H., & Lin, H. M. (2005). An exploration of taiwanese adolescents’ impulsive buying tendency. Adolescence, 40(157).

32. Pharo, H., Sim, C., Graham, M., Gross, J., & Hayne, H. (2011). Risky business: executive function, personality, and reckless behavior during adolescence and emerging adulthood. Behavioral neuroscience, 125(6), 970.

33. Sawyer, S. M., Azzopardi, P. S., Wickremarathne, D., & Patton, G. C. (2018). The age of adolescence. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 2(3), 223-228.

34. Schonberg, T., Fox, C. R., Mumford, J. A., Congdon, E., Trepel, C., & Poldrack, R. A. (2012). Decreasing ventromedial prefrontal cortex activity during sequential risk-taking: an fMRI investigation of the balloon analog risk task. Frontiers in neuroscience, 6, 80. 35. Stigler, G. J. (1950). The development of utility theory. I. Journal of political economy,

58(4), 307-327.

36. Trump, R. K., Finkelstein, S. R., & Connell, P. M. (2015). I will risk a stranger’s money, but not my own or my friend’s money: Effect of proximity of the money source to the self on financial risk-taking. Marketing Letters, 26(4), 501-512.

37. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.

(26)

Appendix A

Table A. The sample sizes, demographics and variables per analysis. (i) Robust regression on the effects of given and earned income on subjective money value; (ii) robust regression on the effect of subjective money value on self-reported financial risk behavior; (iii) robust regression on the effect of subjective money value on task-based financial risk behavior; (iv) Spearman correlation between self-reported and task-based financial risk behavior; and (v) Pearson correlation between task performance and win/loss experience in task-based financial risk behavior. For each variable, mean ± standard deviation is given.

Analysis Subjects (male)

Age (years) Given income

(€) Earned income (€) SMV DOSPERT financial BART bank (€) Win experience Loss experience (i) 27 (10) 16.80 ± 0.60 79.85 ± 117.05 151.30 ± 201.07 39.43 ± 14.36 (ii) 26 (9) 16.78 ± 0.60 39.48 ± 14.65 15.27 ± 5.96 (iii) 27 (10) 16.74 ± 0.55 39.23 ± 14.39 4.14 ± 0.59 (iv) 25 (9) 16.74 ± 0.56 15.24 ± 6.08 4.16 ± 0.60 (v) 25 (9) 16.76 ± 0.56 4.16 ± 0.59 73.13 ± 10.85 24.81 ± 7.50

(27)
(28)
(29)
(30)
(31)

Appendix F

Figure F1. Depicted is the effect of earned monthly income on subjective money value (B = -.01, t(24) = -.44, p = .656). The shadowing indicates the 95% confidence interval.

(32)

Figure F3. Depicted is the correlation between self-reported and task-based financial risk behavior (rs = .46, p =

.036). The shadowing indicates the 95% confidence interval.

Figure F4. Depicted is the correlation between performance and win experience in task-based financial risk behavior (r = -.55, p = .011). The shadowing indicates the 95% confidence interval.

(33)

Figure F5. Depicted is the correlation between performance and loss experience in task-based financial risk behavior (r = .66, p = .002). The shadowing indicates the 95% confidence interval.

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Finally, research into cross- cultural assessment has had and may continue to have various spin-offs, such as the development of various statistical techniques to assess item bias

Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of

The second part of this research , the perception of promotions, studied six factors of promotion benefits that could be of influence of for the perception of

One can state that VFM auditors will not be able to separate the value of Dutch taxpayers’ money (GBS) from that of other donors. In undertaking a VFM audit of GBS, the essential

Individuals behave in more unethical ways when they have a high love of money as opposed to a low love of money and this effect is stronger when one has a

44 Appendix D.2 Empirical results for the regressions on Poverty (povGAP2) – Outliers excluded Outliers excluded Liquid Liabilities PovGAP2 RE Private Credit PovGAP2 RE

Managers of financially constrained firms should be aware of the fact that these excess working capital levels have a strong negative impact on firm value and should adjust

In this study, a ‘high on money’ effect is proposed, the general expectation is that people display more risk-seeking behavior when primed with an abundance of money, and