Strategic finance
please see attached
Short Discussion Paper Selection
Post your topic selection for your discussion paper under the relevant date (topic) in this Conference by 11:59 ET the last day of week 3.
IMPORTANT: Include a pdf. of your paper, not just a URL.I will indicate approval or a reason for disapproval (if I disapprove a paper, I will treat the date as available to someone else on a first-come/ first served basis). There are several time slots; no more than 6 students may sign up for each time (end of session). It is first-come first-served. You must post your topic selection and article with your proposed posting date before approval.
This assignment is an article review of your selected paper, not a discussion of a specific topic. An article review is written for an audience who is knowledgeable in the subject matter instead of a general audience. When writing an article review, you will briefly summarize the main ideas, arguments, positions, and findings. The main part of the paper is a critique of the article’s contributions to the field and its overall effectiveness. You should cite other articles, you can provide a historical review of the idea examined, and you can suggest shortcomings and improvements. (Please see the Welcome letter for a complete description of the rubric for this paper). Each paper should be six to eight pages in length. (1800 – 2000 words, not counting titles, abstract, references, or long quotations).
Gambetti, E., Giusberti, F. (Jun 2019). Journal of Behavioral and ExperimentalEconomics, Vol 80.pp. 14-24.Retrieved on August 24, 2020 fromhttps://www-sciencedirect-com.ezproxy.umgc.edu/science/article/pii/S2214804318302908?via%3Dihub Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbee
Personality, decision-making styles and investments
Elisa Gambetti, Fiorella Giusberti
Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, Viale Berti Pichat 5, 40127 Bologna, Italy
A R T I C L E I N F O
Keywords:
Personality traits
Decision-making styles
Investment decisions
Financial behaviour
A B S T R A C T
Three hundred and sixty-two participants completed the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire and the
General Decision-Making Styles Inventory, together with a survey considering investment perceptions and de-
cisions. The results showed that anxious people tended to save money and avoid investments, perceiving high
risks and low control and returns, whereas individuals with high Extroversion, Independence and Self-Control
were more likely to make investments. Finally, rational and avoidant decision-making styles mediated, re-
spectively, the influence of Self-Control and Anxiety on the decision to invest. These findings extend the
knowledge of the relationship between individual differences in personality and decisional styles and investment
perceptions and decisions.
1. Introduction
Over the last 20 years there has been an increasing number of stu-
dies about the influence that personality has on financial perceptions
and decisions. For example, there is evidence of a relationship between
specific personality characteristics, namely sensation-seeking, impul-
siveness, Type A personality trait, and people’s ability to manage their
finances (Grinblatt and Keloharju, 2009; Lauriola et al., 2014). These
personality characteristics, in combination with one or more socio-
economic factors (being male, older, married, wealthy, well educated,
financially savvy, and having high economic expectations), also predict
financial risk tolerance. This is defined as the willingness to engage in
behaviours whose outcome is uncertain but could be negative, such as
tolerating declines in investment prices while waiting for them to in-
crease in value (Grable and Joo, 2004; Robb and Woodyard, 2011;
Pinjisakikool, 2017).
In the behavioral finance literature, there is conflicting data on the
impact of personality traits on investment decisions: some research
showed that investors personality is correlated to stock market in-
vestments (Donnelly et al., 2012; Mayfield et al., 2008; Durand et al.,
2008; Fenton O’Creevy et al., 2004), whereas other studies suggested
that personality traits, in particular anxiety, do not have a significant
impact on investments, despite their importance in real life situations of
decision making under uncertainty (Hopfensitz and van Winden, 2008).
As existing evidence is puzzling, the aim of the present study is to in-
vestigate whether certain personality traits can be associated with
specific investment perceptions and with the likelihood to invest. Fur-
thermore, we would like to analyze whether these associations are
mediated by differences in people’s decision-making habits, that is de-
cision-making styles. In this sense, decision-making styles could also
play an important role in the prediction of investments. However, to
our knowledge only two studies have investigated this relationship
(Jamal et al., 2014; Muhammad and Abdullah, 2009). Moreover, the
mediation role of decision-making styles in the relationship between
personality traits and investments does not seem to have been in-
vestigated in previous literature. The present study could be of critical
importance to improve understanding of economic decision-making in
an increasingly global and highly competitive economy.
1.1. Review of literature
1.1.1. Personality traits
The five-factor model of personality is currently one of the most
common dimensional approaches to personality: the two most widely
used personality models measuring personality according to five
higher-level dimensions are the 16 Personality Factors (16PF;
Cattell et al., 1970) and the Big Five (Goldberg, 1990; Costa and
McCrae, 1992).
The 16PF model was developed by Cattell and collaborators (1970)
who identified five global factors, that are Extroversion, Anxiety,
Tough-Mindedness, Independence and Self-Control, as well as sixteen
primary traits, which combine to provide an in-depth understanding of
an individual’s personality (see Table 1). Specifically, the Extroversion
(versus Introversion) global factor represents basic human motivations
for moving toward, versus away from, social interaction. High levels of
Anxiety (versus Low Anxiety) were typical of people who are often
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2019.03.002
Received 19 June 2018; Received in revised form 26 February 2019; Accepted 6 March 2019
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [emailprotected] (E. Gambetti).
Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 80 (2019) 1424
Available online 08 March 2019
2214-8043/ 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
T
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/22148043
https://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbee
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2019.03.002
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2019.03.002
mailto:[emailprotected]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2019.03.002
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.socec.2019.03.002&domain=pdf
worried, tense, suspicious of others and reactive, sometimes in a self-
defeating manner. Tough-Mindedness (versus Receptivity) describes
different aspects of reticence, specifically to feelings and emotions, to
abstract ideas and imagination, to new approaches and ideas, and to
people. The Independence (versus Accommodation) global factor refers
to assertiveness and the ability to influence others, determination,
openness to change and suspiciousness. Finally, the Self-Control (versus
Lack of Restraint) global factor was defined by inhibition of impulses
and desires, rigidity of thought, practicality and lack of spontaneity. A
similar set of five personality factors, namely the Big Five, has been
proposed by Goldberg (1990) and Costa and McCrae (1992), becoming
one of the most common taxonomies for the study of personality traits.
These five personality dimensions are shown in Table 1. Extroversion
refers to an enthusiastic attitude toward different situations and people;
agreeableness is characterized by good-nature, cooperativeness and
trust. Neuroticism is characterized by vulnerability, anxiety and un-
certainty. Conscientiousness involves precision, orderliness, responsi-
bility and perseverance. Openness to experience is typical of people
who tend to pay attention to their own feelings and to respect the va-
lues of others. Agreeableness is typical of individuals who cooperate
with others because they have an optimistic view of human nature and
get on well with others.
A range of studies have shown strong correlational and factor-ana-
lytic alignment between the 16PF and the Big Five models (see Table 1).
In particular, there are significant correlations between the two Ex-
troversion factors, between Anxiety and neuroticism, between Self-
Control and conscientiousness, between Receptivity (low Tough-
Mindedness) and openness to experience, and between Independence
and dis-agreeableness (Rossier et al., 2004).
However, there are also several differences between the two models.
As regards the definitions of personality traits, the 16PF Extroversion
principally focuses on warmth, which is the basic dimension of inter-
personal relations, while in the Big Five model this specific character-
istic is divided into different traits such as extroversion and agree-
ableness. The Anxiety trait refers to the ability to manage tension and
worry, whereas neuroticism refers to a wider range of negative emo-
tions such as anxiety, moodiness, anger and irritability. Receptivity,
that is low Tough-Mindedness, describes four different aspects of
openness to the world (feelings, ideas, approaches and people), while
openness to experience focuses more on the cognitive and intellectual
facets. Self-Control includes the whole domain of human methods for
self-control and self-restraint versus impulsivity, while conscientious-
ness focuses on narrower contents such as perfectionism and perse-
verance. Independence is organized around traits of dominance and
assertiveness, while in the Big Five model the trait of dominance is split
between extroversion and disagreeableness (Cattell and
Schuerger, 2003). Other differences between the 16PF and Big Five
models concern methodological issues, such as the method of devel-
opment (bottom-up for the 16PF model, in which the primary trait
definitions are based on a wide range of independent studies, and top-
down for the Big Five model, in which the personality facets were
decided by consensus among a small group of psychologists).
In the present study, the 16PF model (Cattell et al., 1970) was used
to evaluate personality traits for various reasons. Firstly, it is a well-
validated model: most studies have found the 16PF to be among the top
five most commonly used normal-range instruments in both research
and practice (Cattell and Schuerger, 2003). Secondly, unlike the Re-
vised NEO Personality Inventory (McCrae and Costa, 2004), the 16PF-5
questionnaire (Cattell et al., 1993) assesses response styles (social de-
sirability, defensiveness, and acquiescence) and, thus, it is possible to
identify individuals who responded in an unusual or compliant manner.
Thirdly, the 16PF model offers specific primary traits that are more
powerful in understanding and predicting the complexity of actual
behaviour than the Big Five personality traits (Paunonen and Ashton,
2001; Roberts et al., 2005). Fourthly, these traits can be condensed into
a small number of global personality factors similar to those of the Big
Five (Costa and McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1990), allowing a comparison
with the existing literature about behavioural finance.
1.1.2. Personality traits and investments
There is evidence that the Big Five personality dimensions influence
financial preferences and decisions regarding investments. Specifically,
Extroversion seems to play an important role in investment decisions,
shaping financial preferences and, thereby, influencing investment
performance and choices (Durand et al., 2008; Oehler et al., 2017).
Mayfield et al. (2008) showed that extroverts are more inclined to
engage in short-term investing. Moreover, highly conscientious in-
dividuals without specific experience in economics, who have high self-
control, are more able to manage their money compared to highly
neurotic individuals (Donnelly et al., 2012; Webley and Nyhus, 2001).
Research showed that successful professional traders, who have high
levels of risk acceptance, tend to be emotionally stable and open to new
experiences (Fenton O’Creevy et al., 2004). On the other hand, other
authors have concluded, without studying large samples of traders, that
the anxiety trait does not predict trading or investment decisions
(Hopfensitz and van Winden, 2008). Finally, agreeableness is related to
risk aversion (e.g., Dohmen et al., 2011) and is inversely associated
with the likelihood of investing in shares (Brown and Taylor, 2014).
Rizvi and Fatima (2015) showed that all the Big Five personality di-
mensions had a significant impact on stock market investment. How-
ever, no previous studies used the Big Five model, measured by Cattell’s
16PF, to analyse the influence of personality on investment decisions.
Studies have shown that there are several external and internal
factors that significantly impact investors decisions. The former include
the situation framing and the quality of information (Steul, 2006; Seo
et al., 2010), whereas the latter include risk propensity and financial
knowledge (Robb and Woodyard, 2011; Riaz et al., 2012a). There are
only a few studies regarding the impact of investment perceptions, such
as the perception of stock trend predictability, namely how much a
person believes the fluctuation in price of an investment to be pre-
dictable (Gambetti and Giusberti, 2012), and the perception of risks and
expected returns (Ali, 2011). Personality traits have a significant in-
fluence on these investment perceptions that, in turn, were found to
have direct effects on financial behaviour.
As regards the perception of the predictability of investments, the
available literature suggests that neuroticism (high Anxiety in the 16PF
model) reflects the tendency to be unsure, vulnerable, and unstable
(Judge and Bono, 2001). In addition, trait anxiety is linked to perceived
Table 1
Big five and 16pf factors.
Big five factors (Costa and McCrae) 16PF global factors (Cattell) 16PF primary factors (Cattell)
Extroversion/introversion Extroversion/introversion Warmth (+), Liveliness (+), Social boldness (+), Privateness (), Self-reliance ()
Neuroticism/emotional stability High anxiety/low anxiety Emotional stability (), Vigilance (+), Apprehension (+), Tension (+)
Conscientiousness/lack of direction Self-control/lack of restraint Liveliness (), Rule-consciousness (+), Abstractedness (), Perfectionism (+)
Closedness to experience/openness Tough-mindedness/receptivity Warmth (), Sensitivity (), Abstractedness () Openness to change ()
Antagonism/agreeableness Independence/accomodation Dominance (+), Social boldness (+), Openness to change (+), Vigilance (+)
Note: In the brackets the positive (+) or negative () contribute of each 16PF primary scale to its 16PF global scale. Each of the 16 primary factors may contribute to
more than one global factor.
E. Gambetti and F. Giusberti Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 80 (2019) 1424
15
high uncertainty and a low sense of personal control over situations
(Bensi and Giusberti, 2007) and is negatively associated with stock
trend predictability (Gambetti and Giusberti, 2012). Moreover, people
with high levels of traditionalism (positively related with Tough-
Mindedness and negatively with Independence) tend to have an ex-
ternal locus of control in different fields (Mudrack, 2007). On the
contrary, extroversion and conscientiousness (low Self-Control) are
positively related to the perception of control, influencing investment
intentions and trading behavior (Mayfield et al., 2008; Oehler et al.,
2017).
As regards the perception of risks, research showed that anxious
individuals are prone to perceive high risks and, consequently, to hold
less risky assets in their financial portfolios or to avoid investment
decisions altogether (Maner et al., 2007; van Winden et al., 2011;
Gambetti and Giusberti, 2012; Oehler et al., 2017). Conversely, other
studies found that neuroticism is not related to risk appraisal and risk-
taking in different domains, whereas sociability (high Extroversion and
low Tough-Mindedness) is negatively related (Zuckerman and
Kuhlman, 2000). As stated above, research found that emotional sta-
bility (low Anxiety) and openness to new experiences (low Tough-
Mindedness and high Independence) are correlated to high levels of risk
acceptance in the financial field (Fenton O’Creevy et al., 2004). More-
over, low self-control reduces the likelihood of risks attributing less
weight to the consequences of negative outcomes in formulating overall
threat perceptions in wide-ranging domains (Jia et al., 2015).
Up to this point, the discussion has emphasized the associations be-
tween personality traits and investment perceptions and decisions. It is
important to address the possible impact of decision-making styles as well.
1.1.3. Decision-making styles
Decision-making styles are habitual response patterns shown by
individuals when confronted with a specific decision situation
(Thunholm, 2004). Previous research has identified various categories
of decision-making styles (e.g., Leykin and DeRubeis, 2010), con-
sidering decision-making ability as an integral part of the different
personality dimensions (McCrae and Costa, 2004). The most widely
used and well-validated categories include the five decision-making
styles proposed by Scott and Bruce (1995): rational, intuitive, sponta-
neous, dependent and avoidant. Riaz et al. (2012b) showed that each of
the Big Five personality traits of Costa and McCrae (1992) could be
mapped onto a specific behavioural pattern of decision-making. Spe-
cifically, conscientious individuals tend to adopt a rational decision-
making style, following a process of decision-making that involves
several stages, during which they analytically determine possible re-
lationships between the elements under examination and, therefore,
possible alternatives for the resolution (Rahman, 2014). The openness
to experience trait is positively associated with the intuitive decision-
making style (Riaz et al., 2012b). The spontaneous style, characterized
by a feeling of immediacy and a need to conclude the decision-making
process as quickly as possible, is positively associated with extroversion
(Riaz et al., 2012b).
Agreeableness, which is characterized by trust, altruism, com-
pliance, modesty, and sympathy, is positively associated with depen-
dent decision-making style, which is in turn characterized by excessive
reliance, consultations and dependence in decisional scenarios
(Riaz et al., 2012b). The authors also found that neuroticism, char-
acterized by anxiety, self-consciousness, depression, impulsiveness,
anger, and vulnerability, is positively related to the avoidant decision-
making style, principally defined by procrastination in making deci-
sions. Although the Big Five personality traits explain from 15% to 28%
of variance in the five decision-making styles (Riaz et al., 2012b), it
should be noted that personality refers to the individual global patterns
of thoughts, feelings and behaviours, whereas decision-making styles
assess a more narrow construct, limited to the preferred way of ap-
proaching decisions. Both these constructs remain fairly consistent and
permanent throughout life and, for this reason, they could be
considered distinct stable inputs when making financial decisions (e.g.,
Thunholm, 2004). However, to our knowledge, there are a limited
number of studies that have directly investigated the relationship be-
tween decision-making styles and investment decision-making. Re-
search showed that rational investors, who are able to analyse the en-
vironmental, financial and economic information and who are not
easily swayed by emotions, are more likely to have investment success
compared to investors who do not have any specific strategy to search
for information and are often influenced by emotions and frame
(Muhammad and Abdullah, 2009; Jamal et al., 2014). Similar findings
were also found by Grable and Joo (2004) showing that high self-es-
teem and the tendency to search for information about financial pro-
ducts systematically (rational style) help to predict financial risk-tol-
erance and, consequently, to make a good stock selection. In general,
the studies on individual differences in investment decisions identified
two recurrent patterns of behaviour. Firstly, a rational style, defined
as the tendency to analyse all available financial, economic and en-
vironmental information before making the decision to invest; and
secondly an irrational style, characterized by making shortcuts rather
than carrying out fundamental analysis, and relying on emotions, in-
vestment advice from strangers, speculations and rumours (Grable and
Joo, 2004; Muhammad and Abdullah, 2009; Jamal et al., 2014). These
are both general cognitive styles (rational versus irrational; see
Pacini and Epstein, 1999), rather than specific decision-making styles.
The latter are sub-components of wide cognitive styles
(Kozhevnikov, 2007) and may provide a more accurate description of
individual investment decision-making habits.
1.2. Research hypotheses
The overall purpose of the present study was to understand whether,
and if so how, personality traits and decision-making styles are asso-
ciated with investment perceptions and decisions.
The first aim of this study was to address this issue by examining
whether investment decision-making is (or is not) predicted by per-
sonality traits measured using the 16PF model. In the light of the
alignments of the Big Five and 16PF traits (Rossier et al., 2004) and of
the correlations between the Big Five personality traits and investment
decisions and behaviours discussed above, the first hypothesis was
proposed. In particular, we considered that: a) emotional stability and
openness to experiences are typical characteristics of professional tra-
ders (Fenton O’Creevy et al., 2004), b) extroversion predicts the ten-
dency to invest in short-term stocks (Mayfield et al., 2008), c) agree-
ableness is inversely associated with the likelihood to invest
(Brown and Taylor, 2014), d) conscientiousness predicts the ability to
manage money (Donnelly et al., 2012).
Hypothesis 1 . Anxiety and Tough-Mindedness (negatively),
Extroversion, Independence and Self-Control (positively), will predict
the decision to invest.
Moreover, we also expected that personality traits would predict the
perceived stock trend predictability, which measures the perception of
being able to forecast financial trends. The literature review suggested
that trait anxiety but also high levels of traditionalism are associated
with external locus of control in different fields (Gambetti and
Giusberti, 2012; Mudrack, 2007), whereas extroversion and con-
scientiousness are positively related to the perception of control over
situations (Oehler et al., 2017; Mayfield et al., 2008). On this basis, the
following second hypothesis was proposed:
Hypothesis 2 . Anxiety and Tough-Mindedness will be negatively
related to the perception of stock trend predictability, whereas
Extroversion, Independence and Self-Control will be positively
correlated with this perception.
We were also interested in risk and return perceptions about in-
vestments. As stated above, the literature review showed that trait
anxiety is positively related with perceived risks about investments,
E. Gambetti and F. Giusberti Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 80 (2019) 1424
16
whereas sociability is negatively related (Gambetti and Giusberti, 2012;
Zuckerman and Kuhlman, 2000). Openness to new experiences is cor-
related to high-risk acceptance in the financial field (Fenton O’Creevy
et al., 2004) and low self-control reduces the likelihood of risk per-
ceptions in wide-ranging domains (Jia et al., 2015). Given these results
and considering the paucity of literature examining the relationship
between risk and returns perceptions about investments and personality
traits, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3 . Anxiety, Tough-Mindedness and Self-Control will
predict perceptions of high risks and low returns, vice-versa for
Extroversion and Independence.
Previous research has investigated the usefulness of decision-
making styles, together with individual characteristics linked to dif-
ferences in making decisions, to predict various performance criteria.
The former include quality, competence, and satisfaction about deci-
sions in several domains (e.g., Crossley and Highhouse, 2005; Dewberry
et al., 2013; Wood and Highhouse, 2014). The latter comprise locus of
control, sensation-seeking, self-esteem and self-regulation (Thunholm,
2004; Baiocco et al., 2009). However, only a few studies have in-
vestigated the relationship between investments and individual deci-
sion-making habits. These studies considered general cognitive styles
(rational versus irrational) rather than specific decision-making styles
(Jamal et al., 2014; Muhammad and Abdullah, 2009; Grable and Joo,
2004). Based on the results of these previous studies, we proposed:
Hypothesis 4 . Rational, intuitive and spontaneous decision-making
styles will be positively related to the decision to invest, while avoidant
and dependent decision-making styles will negatively predict the
decision to invest.
As stated above, the original Big Five personality factors are a fairly
comprehensive measure of personality in general (Goldberg, 1990) and
they have been associated with decision-making styles (Pacini and
Epstein, 1999; Riaz et al., 2012b). However, no known study to date has
investigated the interactive effect between personality traits and deci-
sion-making styles on investment decisions. Therefore, another aim of
this study was to rule out the possibility that decision-making styles
might mediate the relationship between personality traits and invest-
ment decisions. Thus, we proposed:
Hypothesis 5 . Decision making-styles will mediate the relationship
between personality traits and the decision to invest, as shown in Fig. 1.
2. Method
2.1. Sample
In 2016 a total of 450 surveys, created ad hoc for the current study,
were delivered by hand, mail or email to adults (from 30 to 70 years
old) with different occupations: office workers, bankers, entrepreneurs,
manual workers, artisans and so on. About 50% of the sample were
recruited from bank or insurance company employees. All participants
provided informed consent prior to the study and their participation
was voluntary. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the
local University.
We obtained 373 successful responses in the same year. We ex-
cluded 11 participants with an unusual response pattern on the 16PF-5
Questionnaire that would have affected the validity of scores and could
have contributed towards bias in the findings. The final sample
(N=362) had a mean age of 48.32 years (SD=11.25), and were
37.4% males. The educational level of the sample was the following:
10.6% of participants had a primary school certificate, 49% had grad-
uated from high school, and 40.4% had a bachelor’s or graduate degree.
18.3% of participants had an income of less than 10,000 Euros per year,
29.8% from 10,000 to 20,000 Euros, 37.5% from 21,000 to 40,000
Euros, 12.5% more than 40,000 Euros, 1.9% did not respond to the
question about household income.
Participants were also asked to rate on a 3-point rating scale their
experience in economic/financial topics. 32.8% of the sample was in-
experienced, 9.9% had no specific training but in the past had learned
something from personal experience, and 57.3% had studied financial
topics or worked in the field of economics.
2.2. Materials and procedure
Participants first completed demographics (gender, age, years in
school, household income, experience in economic/financial topics).
Thereafter they filled in questionnaires assessing personality traits and
decision-making styles in a counterbalanced manner with respect to the
investment questionnaire: in 225 surveys the personality traits ques-
tions and the decision making questions come before the investment
questions and in the other 225 surveys the investment questions came
before the personality and the decision making questions. This coun-
terbalancing presentation of questionnaires can reduce or eliminate the
possible order effect that could affect the responses (see Hogarth and
Einhorn, 1992). For example, if people answer the investment questions
first, they may have different reactions to the following personality (for
example being more worried) and decision-making styles (for example
more or less rational) questionnaires. On the other hand, if people an-
swer the personality and decision-making styles questions first, they
may have biases on the investment perceptions (for example more or
less sensitive to risks and/or returns on the basis of the previous re-
sponses).
The independent variables about personality traits and decision-
making styles were measured using the 16 Personality Factor-fifth
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the mediation effects of decision making styles in the relationship between personality traits and the decision to invest.
E. Gambetti and F. Giusberti Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 80 (2019) 1424
17
edition (16PF-5; Russell and Karol, 2001) and the General Decision
Making Styles (Gambetti et al., 2008).
The 16PF-5 is a 170-item questionnaire, made up of the sixteen
primary traits, some of which contributed to more than one of the five
bipolar global factors (see Table 1). Here are some examples of items for
each global factor. Extroversion: I would love to organize and see
people in a commercial office rather than being an architect and
drawing projects in a quiet room. Anxiety: When I’m tense I feel ir-
ritable. Tough-Mindedness : I find it easy to produce new ideas.
Independence: When people do something that irritates me I usually
do point it out. Self-Control : I believe that all work must be done in
the best way. In the present sample the Cronbach ranged from .75 to
.90 across the sixteen primary scales. In the current study, both the five
global factors and the 16 primary factors were used as independent
variables.
The General Decision Making Styles (GDMS) is a self-administered
questionnaire composed of 25 items and structured by five different
scales (Scott and Bruce, 1995). Firstly, Rational, characterized by a
logical and structured approach to decision-making (for example I
double-check my information sources to be sure I have the right facts
before making a decision). Secondly, Intuitive, represented by a ten-
dency to rely upon intuitions, feelings and sensations (for example
When making a decision, I rely upon my instincts). Thirdly, Depen-
dent, characterized by need of the assistance and support of others (for
example I often need the assistance of other people when making
important decisions). Fourthly, Avoidant, represented by attempts to
postpone and avoid decisions (for example I avoid making important
decisions until the pressure is on). Fifthly, Spontaneous, characterized
by the tendency to make decisions in an impulsive way (for example I
generally make snap decisions). The 25 items were presented to re-
sponders in a five-step Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to
strongly agree (5). In the sample of this work Cronbach ranged from
.71 to .85 across the five scales.
Investment decisions and perceptions are the dependent variables and
were measured using the investment questionnaire adapted by
Gambetti and Giusberti (2012), which comprises five questions. Two
were about investment decisions: question A (Have you ever invested
your money?) had a dichotomous answer and investigated the decision
to invest, whereas question B (What kind of investment products have
you chosen so far?) is open and asks about the specific choice of in-
vestment. Participants answered this question by naming different
kinds of investments: bank deposits, shares, mutual funds, state and
industrial bonds, and insurance products. To simplify the subsequent
analyses, the answers to question B were turned into a dichotomous
variable following th
