An Investigation of Response Bias Associated with Electronically Delivered Risk-Tolerance Assessment
Keywords
Financial Therapy, Financial Planning, Financial Counseling
Abstract
A randomized experimental study was designed to compare risk-tolerance scores for those who completed a paper-and-pen risk-tolerance assessment instrument (i.e., the control group) to those who answered the same questions using an electronic method. It was hypothesized that the possibility of an electronic bias might be present. Controlling for financial knowledge, which was positively associated with risk tolerance, men were found to report much higher risk-tolerance scores than women when responding to electronically delivered questions. Results suggest that financial therapists ought to consider this possibility as a factor that influences responses to risk assessments, especially as they incorporate additional technological evaluation tools into their practice.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 License
Recommended Citation
Grable, J. E., & Britt, S. L. (2011). An Investigation of Response Bias Associated with Electronically Delivered Risk-Tolerance Assessment. Journal of Financial Therapy, 2 (1) 5. https://doi.org/10.4148/jft.v2i1.1347
References
Buchanan, T. (2002). Online assessment: Desirable or dangerous? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 148-154.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.33.2.148
Buchanan, T., & Smith, J. L. (1999). Research on the Internet: Validation of a World-Wide Web mediated personality scale. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 31, 565-571.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03200736
Butcher, J. N., Perry, J., & Hahn, J. (2004). Computers in clinical assessment: Historical developments, present status, and future challenges. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60, 331-345.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jclp.10267
PMid:14981795
Chen, H., & Volpe, R. P. (2002). Gender differences in personal financial literacy among college students. Financial Services Review, 11, 289-307.
Grable, J. E. (2008). Risk Tolerance (pp. 1-20). In J. J. Xiao (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Financial Behavior Research. New York: Springer.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-75734-6_1
Grable, J. E. (2000). Financial risk tolerance and additional factors that affect risk taking in everyday money matters. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14(4), 625-630.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022994314982
Grable, J. E., & Lytton, R. H. (1999). Financial risk tolerance revisited: The development of a risk assessment instrument. Financial Services Review, 8, 163-181.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1057-0810(99)00041-4
Hilgert, M. A., & Hogarth, J. M. (2003). Household financial management: The connection between knowledge and behavior. Federal Reserve Bulletin, 89, 309-322.
Huang, H-M. (2006). Do print and Web surveys provide the same results? Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 334-350.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.09.012
Joo, S., & Grable, J. E. (2004). An exploratory framework of the determinants of financial satisfaction. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 25, 25-50.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:JEEI.0000016722.37994.9f
Lucas, K., & Sherry, J. L. (2004). Sex differences in video game play: A communication-based explanation. Communication Research, 31, 499-523.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093650204267930
Palmquist, J., & Stueve, A. (1996). Stay plugged into new opportunities. Marketing Research, 8, 13-15.
Pasveer, K. A., & Ellard, J. H. (1998). The making of a personality inventory: Help from the WWW. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 30, 309-313.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03200659
Phillips, C. A., Rolls, S., Rouse, A., & Griffiths, M. D. (1995). Home video game playing in schoolchildren: A study of incidence and patterns of play. Journal of Adolescence, 18, 687-691.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jado.1995.1049
Roszkowski, M. J., Davey, G., & Grable, J. E. (2005). Insights on measuring risk tolerance from psychology and psychometrics. Journal of Financial Planning, 18 (4), 68-76.
Sax, L. J., Gilmartin, S. K., & Bryant, A. N. (2003). Assessing response rates and nonresponse bias in web and paper surveys. Research in Higher Education, 44, 409-432.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024232915870
Schutz, W. C. (1958). FIRO: A three-dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. New York: Rinehart and Company.
Schwarzer, R., Mueller, J., & Greenglass, E. (1999). Assessment of perceived self-efficacy on the Internet: Data collection in cyberspace. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 12, 145-161.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10615809908248327
Steinberg, W. J. (2008). Statistics Alive! Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tseng, H. M., Tiplady, B., Macleod, H. A., & Wright, P. W. (1998). Computer anxiety: A comparison of pen-based personal digital assistants, conventional computer and paper assessment of mood and performance. British Journal of Psychology, 89, 599-610.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1998.tb02705.x
PMid:9854805
Weber, E. U., Blais, A-R., & Betz, N. E. (2002). A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 263–290.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.414
