Comparing Elicitation Methods of Risk Preferences in Personal Financial Planning: A Field Experiment among Working Adults in Malaysia

Kean-Siang Ch'ng (), Phaik Nie Chin () and Suzanna A. Bono ()
Additional contact information
Kean-Siang Ch'ng: School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia
Phaik Nie Chin: Graduate School of Business, Universiti Sains Malaysia
Suzanna A. Bono: School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia

Malaysian Journal of Economic Studies, 2023, vol. 60, issue 1, 29-44

Abstract: Risk preference is an important input in designing investment types or port-folios in personal finance. Although there are many reported risk elicitation methods, the risk preference measure obtained from these methods has not been associated with any behavioural or psychological reasons underlying the choices made. This association is important in providing the underlying theoretical understanding of risk preferences and establishing the robustness of a measure. The present paper attempted to test the consistency of risk preferences between two widely used elicitation methods: Grable and Lytton (1999, 2003) risk tolerance score and probability weighting function in prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Tversky & Kahneman, 1992). The risk score captures the self-reported willingness to engage in risky investment, and the probability weighting function shows overweighting or underweighting of the probability. We conducted a series of field experiments involving working adults of three main ethnic groups in Malaysia. The results showed consistency in risk preferences between the two methods: high willingness to engage in risk was complemented by optimistic probability weighting, and respondents with low willingness to engage in risky investment evaluated high probability more favourably. The study is useful to financial professionals when implementing the questionnaire to measure risk preferences.

Keywords: Grable and Lytton risk tolerance score; probability weighting function; risk preferences; prospect theory; financial counselling and planning (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: C93 D91 G41 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:mjr:journl:v:60:y:2023:i:1:p:29-44

DOI: 10.22452/MJES.vol60no1.2

Access Statistics for this article

Malaysian Journal of Economic Studies is currently edited by Lim Kian Ping

More articles in Malaysian Journal of Economic Studies from Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Malaya & Malaysian Economic Association Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Malaysian Economic Association ().