본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

조절초점과 기대수익-위험 정보 구성이 금융투자상품의 선택에 미치는 영향

The Influence of Regulatory Focus and the Configuration of Return-Risk Information on Consumer Choice of Financial Investment Products

하영원|김영두
한국소비자학회 (Korean Society Of Consumer Studies)|2011.12|소비자학연구 (Journal of Consumer Studies)|제22권 제4호|pp. 103-134

0

조회

0

다운로드

27

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

위험금융투자상품regulatory focus선택지각된 위험조절초점choiceriskperceived risk평균-분산mean-varianceexpected returnfinancial investment product기대수익self-regulatory orientation자기조절 지향성
주제분류경제학

초록

Consumer judgment and decision making in the financial markets are important but underresearched topics in marketing. When evaluating or choosing financial products, expected rate of return and risk are important judgment and choice criteria in financial consumers' decision making. In finance (investment) literatures, it is generally assumed that there is a trade-off relationship between the expected rate of return and risk. In addition, risk and preference are also assumed to have a negative relationship. In the world of mean-variance criterion, it is generally suggested that consumers choose the financial product with a lower level of risk if the alternatives have the same expected rate of return. Traditionally, the word ‘risk’ has negative connotations such as peril, hazard or injury. Therefore,some researchers have proposed that, because of the negative implications of the word, the risk of financial products is considered as a below target return or the chances of achieving a return below the mean, even though the risk of financial products is generally measured as a deviation from the mean and reflects the chances of a return both above and below the mean. According to previous studies on perception of financial risk, however, risk not only has a negative downside potential, but also a positive upside potential. Considering that risk perception of a financial investment has both negative and positive features and that the objectives of financial investments are maximization of profits and minimization of losses,whether financial consumers have a promotion-focused orientation (vs. a prevention-focused orientation) is likely to have an influence on their perception and evaluation of return-risk information and distinctively impact their choices of financial investment products. Promotionfocused consumers orient themselves toward ideal goals, focus on the presence of positive outcomes, aim at their maximal goal, and think probabilities disjunctive. Prevention-focused consumers orient themselves toward ought goals, focus on the absence of negative outcomes,aim at their minimal goal, and think probabilities conjunctive. Therefore, promotion-focused consumers focus on the positive features of risk, i.e., upside potential, but prevention-focused consumers focus on the negative features of risk, i.e., downside potential. This study investigates how regulatory focus influences consumer choice of financial investment products. Building on regulatory focus theory and decision making under risk, this study examines how consumers evaluate investment products when exposed to the information regarding the products' expected rate of returns and risk. In our experiments, we manipulated regulatory focus with situational priming and participants were exposed to different sets of risk-return information. We treated risk as a dispersion of expected return and presented risk as a range, i.e., upper limit and lower limit. The major findings are as follows:First, in contrast to the principle proposed by the mean-variance criterion, although more than half of the participants chose financial investment products compatible with normative investment theory, a substantial number of participants (approximately 40%) in our experiment chose a riskier alternative when presented with equivalent-expected-return alternatives, while very few participants (approximately 6%) chose a lower expected return alternative when presented with equivalent risk alternatives. In addition, the riskier alternative was more frequently chosen by the promotion-focused participants than the prevention-focused participants. Second, compared with the condition of ‘unequivalent expected returns and equivalent risk’,i) a substantial number of participants chose the riskier alternative in the ‘equivalent-expectedreturn alternatives’ condition when both expected return and risk were presented in the gain domain, and ii) substantial-but-lesser number of participants chose the riskier alternative in the ‘equivalent- expected-return alternatives’ condition when the return and risk were presented in the gain domain but the lower limit of the riskier alternative fell in the loss domain, i.e.,gain-loss mixed configuration of risk. And in these cases, the riskier alternative was also more frequently chosen by the promotion-focused participants than the prevention-focused participants. Third, in the ‘equivalent expected return and unequivalent risk alternatives’ condition,participants were less likely to choose the riskier alternative when the return and risk of the less risky alternative were presented in the gain domain but the lower limit of the riskier alternative fell in the loss domain than when both the return and risk information fell in the gain domain. We explore theoretical implications of our findings in the framework of prospect theory and theories of finance (investment). Theoretical contributions of the current study are as follows:First, increased risk-seeking behavior was observed when return-risk information was configured in the gain (or expected gain) domain but was reduced when the return-risk information was configured in the gain-loss domain. Regulatory focus also influenced this phenomenon. The risk-seeking behavior in our experimental participants was somewhat different from the results expected according to prospect theory. Second, even in the equivalent expected return condition, a substantial number of participants chose the riskier alternative contrary to the expectations based on normative investment theory (mean-variance criterion). Regulatory focus also influenced this phenomenon. Third, we demonstrate that regulatory focus is an important precedent in determining the evaluation and choice of financial products, which in our experiment depended on return-risk information configuration. We also describe the practical implications of the study with regard to market segmentation,financial policy, and financial education. As further research, we suggest an international comparisons of financial consumers' risk-return perception, evaluation and choice based on risk-return information.

Abstract

Consumer judgment and decision making in the financial markets are important but underresearched topics in marketing. When evaluating or choosing financial products, expected rate of return and risk are important judgment and choice criteria in financial consumers' decision making. In finance (investment) literatures, it is generally assumed that there is a trade-off relationship between the expected rate of return and risk. In addition, risk and preference are also assumed to have a negative relationship. In the world of mean-variance criterion, it is generally suggested that consumers choose the financial product with a lower level of risk if the alternatives have the same expected rate of return. Traditionally, the word ‘risk’ has negative connotations such as peril, hazard or injury. Therefore,some researchers have proposed that, because of the negative implications of the word, the risk of financial products is considered as a below target return or the chances of achieving a return below the mean, even though the risk of financial products is generally measured as a deviation from the mean and reflects the chances of a return both above and below the mean. According to previous studies on perception of financial risk, however, risk not only has a negative downside potential, but also a positive upside potential. Considering that risk perception of a financial investment has both negative and positive features and that the objectives of financial investments are maximization of profits and minimization of losses,whether financial consumers have a promotion-focused orientation (vs. a prevention-focused orientation) is likely to have an influence on their perception and evaluation of return-risk information and distinctively impact their choices of financial investment products. Promotionfocused consumers orient themselves toward ideal goals, focus on the presence of positive outcomes, aim at their maximal goal, and think probabilities disjunctive. Prevention-focused consumers orient themselves toward ought goals, focus on the absence of negative outcomes,aim at their minimal goal, and think probabilities conjunctive. Therefore, promotion-focused consumers focus on the positive features of risk, i.e., upside potential, but prevention-focused consumers focus on the negative features of risk, i.e., downside potential. This study investigates how regulatory focus influences consumer choice of financial investment products. Building on regulatory focus theory and decision making under risk, this study examines how consumers evaluate investment products when exposed to the information regarding the products' expected rate of returns and risk. In our experiments, we manipulated regulatory focus with situational priming and participants were exposed to different sets of risk-return information. We treated risk as a dispersion of expected return and presented risk as a range, i.e., upper limit and lower limit. The major findings are as follows:First, in contrast to the principle proposed by the mean-variance criterion, although more than half of the participants chose financial investment products compatible with normative investment theory, a substantial number of participants (approximately 40%) in our experiment chose a riskier alternative when presented with equivalent-expected-return alternatives, while very few participants (approximately 6%) chose a lower expected return alternative when presented with equivalent risk alternatives. In addition, the riskier alternative was more frequently chosen by the promotion-focused participants than the prevention-focused participants. Second, compared with the condition of ‘unequivalent expected returns and equivalent risk’,i) a substantial number of participants chose the riskier alternative in the ‘equivalent-expectedreturn alternatives’ condition when both expected return and risk were presented in the gain domain, and ii) substantial-but-lesser number of participants chose the riskier alternative in the ‘equivalent- expected-return alternatives’ condition when the return and risk were presented in the gain domain but the lower limit of the riskier alternative fell in the loss domain, i.e.,gain-loss mixed configuration of risk. And in these cases, the riskier alternative was also more frequently chosen by the promotion-focused participants than the prevention-focused participants. Third, in the ‘equivalent expected return and unequivalent risk alternatives’ condition,participants were less likely to choose the riskier alternative when the return and risk of the less risky alternative were presented in the gain domain but the lower limit of the riskier alternative fell in the loss domain than when both the return and risk information fell in the gain domain. We explore theoretical implications of our findings in the framework of prospect theory and theories of finance (investment). Theoretical contributions of the current study are as follows:First, increased risk-seeking behavior was observed when return-risk information was configured in the gain (or expected gain) domain but was reduced when the return-risk information was configured in the gain-loss domain. Regulatory focus also influenced this phenomenon. The risk-seeking behavior in our experimental participants was somewhat different from the results expected according to prospect theory. Second, even in the equivalent expected return condition, a substantial number of participants chose the riskier alternative contrary to the expectations based on normative investment theory (mean-variance criterion). Regulatory focus also influenced this phenomenon. Third, we demonstrate that regulatory focus is an important precedent in determining the evaluation and choice of financial products, which in our experiment depended on return-risk information configuration. We also describe the practical implications of the study with regard to market segmentation,financial policy, and financial education. As further research, we suggest an international comparisons of financial consumers' risk-return perception, evaluation and choice based on risk-return information.

참고문헌 (83)

  2. 김영규, "현대재무관리" (2004), 박영사
  3. 박정식, "현대투자론 제2판" (2005), 다산출판사
  4. 장영광, "증권투자론 제5판" (2009), 박영사
  5. 최운열, "투자론 - 이론과 실무" (2005), 박영사
  6. Aaker, Jennifer L., "‘I’ Seek Pleasure and ‘We’ Avoid Pains: The Role of Self-Regulatory Goals in Information Processing and Persuasion", Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), pp.3~49 (2001)
  7. Bajeux-Besnainou, Isabelle, "Dynamic Asset Allocation in a Mean-Variance Framework", Management Science, 44(11), pp.S79~S95 (1998)
  8. Baker, M., "Behavioral Finance at JP Morgan" (2007), Harvard Business School
  9. Basak, Suleyman, "Dynamic Mean-Variance Asset Allocation", Review of Financial Studies, 23(8), pp.2970~3016 (2010)
  10. Benartzi, Shlomo, "Naive Diversification Strategies in Defined Contribution Savings Plan", American Economic Review, 91(1), pp.79~98 (2001)
  11. Benartzi, Shlomo, "Heuristics and Biases in Retirement Savings Behavior", Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(3), pp.81~104 (2007)
  12. Bertsimas, Dimitris, "Shortfall as a Risk Measure: Properties, Optimization and Applications", Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 28(7), pp.1353~1381 (2004)
  13. Bodie, Zvi, "Shortfall Risk and Pension Fund Management", Financial Analysts Journal, 47(3), pp.57~61 (1991)
  14. Bodie, Zvi, "Essentials of Investments, 6th edition", pp.2007, McGraw-Hill
  15. Brockner, Joel, "Regulatory Focus Theory: Implications for the Study of Emotions at Work", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1), pp.35~66 (2001)
  16. Brockner, Joel, "Regulatory Focus and the Probability Estimates of Conjunctive and Disjunctive Events", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87(1), pp.5~24 (2002)
  17. Byrne, Kathleen, "How do Consumers Evaluate Risk in Financial Products", Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 10(1), pp.21~36 (2005)
  18. Byrnes, James P., "Gender Differences in Risk Taking: A Meta-Analysis", Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), pp.367~383 (1999)
  19. Chernev, Alexander, "Goal Orientation and Consumer Preference for the Status Quo", Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), pp.567~565 (2004)
  20. Crowe, Ellen, "Regulatory Focus and Strategic Inclinations: Promotion and Prevention in Decision Making", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), pp.117~132 (1997)
  21. De Bondt, Werner, "A Portrait of the Individual Investor", European Economic Review, 42(3-5), pp.831~844 (1998)
  22. De Bondt, Werner, "Behavioral Finance: Quo Vadis", Journal of Applied Finance, 18(2), pp.7~21 (2008)
  23. Elton, Edwin J., "Modern Portfolio Theory and Investment Analysis, 7th Edition" (2007), John Wiley & Sons, Inc
  24. Fabozzi, Frank J., "Portfolio Selection, In The Theory and Practice of Investment Management", pp.15~42 (2002), John Wiley & Sons, Inc
  25. Fischhoff, Baruch, "Acceptable risk" (1981), Cambridge University Press
  26. Fishburn, Peter C., "Mean-Risk Analysis with Risk Associated with Below-Target Returns", American Economic Review, 67(2), pp.116~126 (1977)
  27. Förster, Jens, "Success", Failure Feed-back, Expectancies, and Approach, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, pp.2001, 37(3)[DOI]
  28. Förster, Jens, "Speed", Accuracy in Performance: Tradeoff in Decision-Making or Separate Strategic Concerns, 2003, pp.90(1), 148~164
  29. Friedman, Ronald S., "The Effects of Promotion and Prevention Cues on Creativity", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), pp.1001~1013 (2001)
  30. Ganzach, Yoav, "Judging Risk and Return of Financial Assets", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83(2), pp.353~370 (2000)
  31. Halamish, Vered, "Regulatory Focus Effects on Discounting Over Uncertainty for Losses vs. Gains", Journal of Economic Psychology, 29(5), pp.654~666 (2008)
  32. Hanson, Steven D., "Robustness of the Mean-Variance Model with Truncated Probability Distributions", American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73(2), pp.436~445 (1991)
  33. He, Xin, "Gender Jeopardy in Financial Risk Taking", Journal of Marketing Research, 45(4), pp.414~424 (2008)
  34. Higgins, E. Tory, "Beyond Pleasure and Pain", American Psychologist, 52(12), pp.1280~1300 (1997)
  35. Higgins, E. Tory, "Promotion and Prevention: Regulatory Focus as a Motivational Principle, In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology", pp.1~46 (1998), Academic Press
  36. Higgins, E. Tory, "Ideal versus Ought Predictions for Approach and Avoidance: Distinct Self-Regulatory Systems", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(2), pp.276~286 (1994)
  37. Hoch, Stephen J., "Consumer Learning: Advertising and the Ambiguity of Product Experience", Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), pp.221~233 (1986)
  38. Holthausen, Duncan M., "A Risk-Return Model with Risk and Return Measured as Deviations from a Target Return", American Economic Review, 71(1), pp.182~188 (1981)
  39. Hong, Jiewen, "Be Fit and Be Strong: Mastering Self-Regulation through Regulatory Fit", Journal of Consumer Research, 34(5), pp.682~694 (2008)
  40. Hsee, Christopher K., "Cross-National Differences in Risk Perception and Lay Predictions", Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(2), pp.165~179 (1999)
  41. Idson, Lorraine C., "Distinguishing Gains from Non-losses and Losses from Non-gains: A Regulatory Focus Perspective on Hedonic Intensity", Journal Experimental Social Psychology, 36(3), pp.252~274 (2000)
  42. Jain, Shailendra P., "When More May Be Less: The Effects of Regulatory Focus on Responses to Different Comparative Frames", Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), pp.91~98 (2006)
  43. Jordan, Jenny, "Advertising in the Mutual Fund Business: The Role of Judgmental Heuristics in Private Investors' Evaluation of Risk and Return", Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 7(2), pp.129~140 (2002)
  44. Kahneman, Daniel, "The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias", Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), pp.193~206 (1991)
  45. Kahneman, Daniel, "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk", Econometrica, 47(2), pp.263~291 (1979)
  46. Keller, Punam A., "Regulatory Focus and Efficacy of Health Messages", Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), pp.109~114 (2006)
  47. Krokhmal, Pavlo, "Modeling and Optimization of Risk", Surveys in Operations Research and Management Science, 16(2), pp.49~66 (2011)
  48. Liberman, Nira, "Promotion and Prevention Choice between Stability and Change", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), pp.1135~1145 (1999)
  49. Louro, Mario J., "Negative Returns on Positive Emotions: The Influence of Pride and Self-Regulatory Goals on Repurchase Decisions", Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), pp.833~840 (2005)
  50. MacCrimmon, Kenneth. R., "Taking Risks: The Management of Uncertainty" (1986), Free Press
  51. MacGregor, D. G., "Perception of Financial Risk: A Survey Study of Advisors and Planners", Journal of Financial Planning, 12(8), pp.68~86 (1999)
  52. Mandel, Naomi, "Shifting Selves and Decision Making: The Effects of Self-Construal Priming on Consumer Risk-Taking", Journal of Consumer Research, 30(1), pp.30~40 (2003)
  53. Maringer, Dietmar, "Portfolio Management with Heuristic Optimization" (2005), Springer
  54. Markowitz, Harry M., "Portfolio Selection", Journal of Finance, 7(1), pp.77~91 (1952)
  56. Mogilner, Cassie, "Time Will Tell: The Distant Appeal of Promotion and Imminent Appeal of Prevention", Journal of Consumer Research, 34(5), pp.670~681 (2008)
  57. Mourai, Mehdi, "Compromise and Attraction Effects under Prevention and Promotion Motivations", Journal of Consumer Research, 34(2), pp.234~247 (2007)
  58. Olsen, Robert A., "Investment Risk: The Expert’s Perspective", Financial Analysts Journal, 53(2), pp.62~66 (1997)
  59. Olsen, Robert A., "The Influence of Gender on the Perception and Response to Investment Risk: The Case of Professional Investors", Journal of Psychology and Financial Markets, 2(1), pp.29~36 (2001)
  60. Pham, Michel T, "Ideals and Oughts and the Reliance on Affect Versus Substance in Persuasion", Journal of Consumer Research, 30(4), pp.503~518 (2004)
  61. Pham, Michel T., "Contingent Reliance on the Affect Heuristic as a Function of Regulatory Focus", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), pp.267~278 (2009)
  62. Pompian, Michael M., "Incorporating Behavioral Finance into Your Practice", Journal of Financial Planning, 18(3), pp.58~63 (2005)
  63. Raghubir, Priya, "The Long and Short of It: Why Are Stocks with Shorter Runs Preferred", Journal of Consumer Research, 36(6), pp.964~982 (2010)
  64. Roese, Neal J., "Expectancy, In Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, 2nd edition", pp.91~115 (2007), Guilford Press
  65. Roy, A. D., "Safety First and the Holding of Assets", Econometrica, 20(3), pp.431~439 (1952)
  66. Schoemaker, Paul J. H., "Are Risk-Attitudes Related Across Domains and Response Modes", Management Science, 36(12), pp.1451~1463 (1990)
  67. Shah, James, "Expectancy X Value Effects: Regulatory Focus as Determinant of Magnitude and Direction", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), pp.447~458 (1997)
  68. Sitkin, Sim B., "Reconceptualizing the Determinants of Risk Behavior", Academy of Management Review, 17, pp.9~39 (1992)
  69. Sitkin, Sim B., "Determinants of Risky Decision-Making Behavior: A Test of the Mediating Role of Risk Perceptions and Propensity", Academy of Management Journal, 38(6), pp.1573~1582 (1995)
  70. Steinbach, Marc C., "Markowitz Revisited: Mean-Variance Models in Financial Portfolio Analysis", SIAM Review, 43(1), pp.31~85 (2001)
  71. Tversky, Amos, "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty", Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), pp.297~323 (1992)
  72. Unser, Matthias, "Lower Partial Moments as Measures of Perceived Risk: An Experimental Study", Journal of Economic Psychology, 21(3), pp.253~280 (2000)
  73. Veld, Chris, "The Risk Perceptions of Individual Investors", Journal of Economic Psychology, 29(2), pp.226~252 (2008)
  74. Vlaev, Ivo, "Dimensionality of Risk Perception: Factors Affecting Consumer Understanding and Evaluation of Financial Risk", Journal of Behavioral Finance, 10(3), pp.158~181 (2009)
  75. Wan, Echo Wen, "The Effect of Regulatory Orientation and Decision Strategy on Brand Judgments", Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), pp.1026~1038 (2009)
  76. Wang, Jing, "The Role of Regulatory Focus in Preference Construction", Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), pp.28~38 (2006)
  77. Weber, Elke U., "A Domain-Specific Risk-Attitude Scale: Measuring Risk Perceptions and Risk Behaviors", Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15(4), pp.269~290 (2002)
  78. Weber, Elke U., "Crosscultural Difference in Risk Perception, but Cross-cultural Similarities in Attitudes towards Perceived Risk", Management Science, 44(9), pp.1205~1217 (1998)
  79. Weber, Elke U., "Culture and Individual Judgment and Decision Making", Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49(1), pp.32~61 (2000)
  80. Weber, Elke U., "Perceived Risk Attitude: Relating Risk Perception to Risky Choice", Management Science, 43(2), pp.123~144 (1997)
  81. Werth, Lioba, "How Regulatory Focus Influences Consumer Behavior", European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(1), pp.33~51 (2007)
  82. Zakamouline, Valeri, "A Generalisation of the Mean-Variance Analysis", European Financial Management, 15(5), pp.934~970 (2009)
  83. Zhou, Rongrong, "Promotion and Prevention Across Mental Accounts: When Financial Products Dictate Consumers' Investment Goals", Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), pp.125~135 (2004)

관련 논문AI추천

금융투자 상품 맥락에서 프레이밍 효과가 한중 소비자 구입 의향에 미치는 영향: 조절 초점의 매개 효과를 중심으로전호성, 총완천한국소비문화학회 · 소비문화연구2015 · 제18권 제2호이익 혹은 손실 상황에서 금융소비자들이 경험하는 감정은 모두 같은가? - 조절초점에 따른 감정 유형 간 강도 그리고 만족도 차이를 중심으로 -김영두한국소비자학회 · 소비자학연구2011 · 제22권 제3호고려상표군 형성이 금융상품 선택변화에 미치는 영향박기경한국상품학회 · 상품학연구2018 · 제36권 제1호투자자의 손실회피 성향과 해석수준이 금융상품 태도에 미치는 영향강현모한국지식경영학회 · 지식경영연구2017 · 제18권 제1호투자자의 손실회피성과 준거점이 금융상품 선택에 미치는 영향강현모한국산업경영학회 · 경영연구2009 · 제24권 제4호조절초점과 지각된 위험이 크라우드 펀딩 참여 의도에 미치는 영향이원준, 이한석, 이희정한국상품학회 · 상품학연구2015 · 제33권 제1호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (6건)

모바일 광고의 단계별 수용과정에 관한 연구남기화, 여정성pp. 1-28사회연결망이 구전과 고객 추천가치에 미치는 영향이난영, 이학식pp. 29-53금융교육과 금융거래경험이 대학생의 금융이해력에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구최현자, 조혜진pp. 55-75구전활동이 전달자의 감정에 미치는 영향: 구전극성과 구전동기의 역할박기경, 류강석pp. 77-101소비문화의 차원화 및 척도개발 -서울, 뉴욕, 스톡홀름의 소비자를 대상으로 -김선우, 김난도pp. 135-162
원문 보기