Dataset Information

Scale matters: risk perception, return expectations, and investment propensity under different scalings.

ABSTRACT: With a novel experimental design we investigate whether risk perception, return expectations, and investment propensity are influenced by the scale of the vertical axis in charts. We explore this for two presentation formats, namely return charts and price charts, where we depict low- and high-volatility assets with distinct trends. We find that varying the scale strongly affects people's risk perception, as a narrower scale of the vertical axis leads to significantly higher perceived riskiness of an asset even if the underlying volatility is the same. Furthermore, past returns predict future return expectations almost perfectly. In our setting perceived profitability was considered more important than perceived riskiness when making investment choices. Overall we show that adapting the scale of a chart makes it easier to recognize yearly return variations within a single security, but at the same time makes it harder to identify differences between dissimilar securities. This is something regulators should be aware of and take into account in the rules they set.

SUBMITTER: Huber C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6373342 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Scale matters: risk perception, return expectations, and investment propensity under different scalings.

Huber Christoph C Huber Jürgen J

Experimental economics 20181201 1

With a novel experimental design we investigate whether risk perception, return expectations, and investment propensity are influenced by the scale of the vertical axis in charts. We explore this for two presentation formats, namely return charts and price charts, where we depict low- and high-volatility assets with distinct trends. We find that varying the scale strongly affects people's risk perception, as a narrower scale of the vertical axis leads to significantly higher perceived riskiness ...[more]

PMID: 30828259

Similar Datasets

Project description:Rheumatic Heart Disease (RHD) remains endemic in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) despite its virtual elimination in high-income countries. RHD Action was launched to amplify global efforts to control RHD in 2015 by World Heart Federation and Reach, with demonstration projects in Uganda and Tanzania, and support from Medtronic Foundation. The Small Grants Programme focuses on three domains: People and Communities, Medicines and Technologies, and Systems and Services. It is designed to support patient and community groups in promoting awareness, advocacy, and to build health workers' capacity to prevent and treat RHD in LMICs. Our study evaluates the impact and effectiveness of the RHD Action Small Grants Programme. Methods: We conducted a mixed method study that involved both quantitative and qualitative surveys, through phone interviews and online surveys amongst the grant beneficiaries, to assess the impact and effectiveness of the small grant programme. An invitation to complete an online survey, using a Google Forms format, was issued to Small Grant Project Directors and Co-Directors that received funding for projects between 2017 and 2019. The online survey requested basic project information using tick boxes, Likert scales, and short answer open-ended questions about successes and challenges faced by recipients. The questionnaire also addressed recipients' experience with the RHD Action Small Grants process - applying for the grant, nature and quality of support received to carry out project, the reporting process, and any media coverage provided. For the phone interviews, responses to the short-answer questions were used as the basis for follow up phone interviews. The discussions were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed for new and recurring themes emerging from the in-depth discussions. Initiated in 2017, RHD Action has funded 21 proposals from a pool of 60 submissions. Recipient countries include Zambia, Uganda (2), Namibia, Kenya, Malawi (2), Egypt, Ethiopia, Nigeria (3), Rwanda (2), Mozambique, and Cameroon (2) as well as Fiji (2), the Philippines and Nepal. Five recipients were funded in 2017, eight in 2018 and eight in 2019. Project directors are primarily junior doctors and project managers supervised by senior mentors. In most cases, this is their first funding award. These projects have demonstrated tangible impact and have provided content for first manuscript and abstract submissions and presentations at professional conferences. Grant reports are presented as website stories showcasing the achievements of small local efforts with meaningful impact. For RHD Action, there is large return on a modest monetary investment resulting in a very visible, viable global RHD networking platform for enthusiastic community and provider activists.

Project description:IntroductionOver 50% of people affected by cancer report unmet support needs. To address unmet information and psychological needs, non-government organisations such as Cancer Councils (Australia) have developed state-based telephone cancer information and support services. Due to competing demands, evidence of the value of these services is needed to ensure that future investment makes the best use of scarce resources. This research aims to determine the costs and broader economic and social value of a telephone support service, to inform future funding and service provision.Methods and analysisA codesigned, evaluative social return on investment analysis (SROI) will be conducted to estimate and compare the costs and monetised benefits of Cancer Council Victoria's (CCV) telephone support line, 13 11 20, over 1-year and 3-year benefit periods. Nine studies will empirically estimate the parameters to inform the SROI and calculate the ratio (economic and social value to value invested): step 1 mapping outcomes (in-depth analysis of CCV's 13 11 20 recorded call data; focus groups and interviews); step 2 providing evidence of outcomes (comparative survey of people affected by cancer who do and do not call CCV's 13 11 20; general public survey); step 3 valuing the outcomes (financial proxies, value games); step 4 establishing the impact (Delphi); step 5 calculating the net benefit and step 6 service improvement (discrete choice experiment (DCE), 'what if' analysis). Qualitative (focus groups, interviews) and quantitative studies (natural language processing, cross-sectional studies, Delphi) and economic techniques (willingness-to-pay, financial proxies, value games, DCE) will be applied.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval for each of the studies will be sought independently as the project progresses. So far, ethics approval has been granted for the first two studies. As each study analysis is completed, results will be disseminated through presentation, conferences, publications and reports to the partner organisations.

Project description:ObjectiveCorrectly understanding and evaluating the level of public risk perception toward public health emergencies not only helps experts and decision-makers understand the public's preventative health behaviors to these emergencies but also enhances their risk information communication with the public. The aim of this study was to develop a risk perception scale for public health emergencies and test its validity and reliability during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.MethodsGuided by the theoretical model of risk perception, an initial scale was generated through literature review, group meetings, resident interviews, and expert consultation. A pretest and item screening were then conducted to develop a formal risk perception scale for public health emergencies. Finally, the reliability and validity of the scale were validated through a questionnaire survey of 504 Chinese adults.ResultsThe final scale had 9 items. The content validity index of the scale was 0.968, and the content validity index of individual items ranged from 0.83 to 1.00. Three common factors, dread risk perception, severe risk perception, and unknown risk perception, were extracted for exploratory factor analysis, and together they explained 66.26% of the variance in the score. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the model had a satisfactory fit, where χ 2/df = 1.384, the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = 0.989, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.028, root mean square residual (RMR) = 0.018, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.995, normed fit index (NFI) = 0.982, and non-normed fit index (NNFI) = 0.990. The correlations between dimensions ranged from 0.306 to 0.483 (P < 0.01). Cronbach's α was 0.793 for the total scale and ranged between 0.687 and 0.801 for the individual dimensions. The split-half coefficient was 0.861 for the total scale and ranged from 0.727 to 0.856 for induvial dimensions. The test-retest coefficient was 0.846 for the total scale and ranged from 0.843 to 0.868 for induvial dimensions.ConclusionThe developed scale for the risk perception of public health emergencies showed acceptable levels of reliability and validity, suggesting that it is suitable for evaluating residents' risk perception of public health emergencies.

Project description:BackgroundWe previously developed a Quality Improvement (QI) Return-on-Investment (ROI) conceptual framework for large-scale healthcare QI programmes. We defined ROI as any monetary or non-monetary value or benefit derived from QI. We called the framework the QI-ROI conceptual framework. The current study describes the different categories of benefits covered by this framework and explores the relationships between these benefits.MethodsWe searched Medline, Embase, Global health, PsycInfo, EconLit, NHS EED, Web of Science, Google Scholar, organisational journals, and citations, using ROI or returns-on-investment concepts (e.g., cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, value) combined with healthcare and QI. Our analysis was informed by Complexity Theory in view of the complexity of large QI programmes. We used Framework analysis to analyse the data using a preliminary ROI conceptual framework that was based on organisational obligations towards its stakeholders. Included articles discussed at least three organisational benefits towards these obligations, with at least one financial or patient benefit. We synthesized the different QI benefits discussed.ResultsWe retrieved 10 428 articles. One hundred and two (102) articles were selected for full text screening. Of these 34 were excluded and 68 included. Included articles were QI economic, effectiveness, process, and impact evaluations as well as conceptual literature. Based on these literatures, we reviewed and updated our QI-ROI conceptual framework from our first study. Our QI-ROI conceptual framework consists of four categories: 1) organisational performance, 2) organisational development, 3) external outcomes, and 4) unintended outcomes (positive and negative). We found that QI benefits are interlinked, and that ROI in large-scale QI is not merely an end-outcome; there are earlier benefits that matter to organisations that contribute to overall ROI. Organisations also found positive aspects of negative unintended consequences, such as learning from failed QI.Discussion and conclusionOur analysis indicated that the QI-ROI conceptual framework is made-up of multi-faceted and interconnected benefits from large-scale QI programmes. One or more of these may be desirable depending on each organisation's goals and objectives, as well as stage of development. As such, it is possible for organisations to deduce incremental benefits or returns-on-investments throughout a programme lifecycle that are relevant and legitimate.

Dataset Information

Scale matters: risk perception, return expectations, and investment propensity under different scalings.

Publications

Scale matters: risk perception, return expectations, and investment propensity under different scalings.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets