The impacts of superstition on risk preferences and beliefs: Evidence from the Chinese zodiac year*

被引:6
作者
Wu, Nan [1 ]
Zhang, Xiaomeng [2 ]
Zhou, Wenyu [3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Cent Univ Finance & Econ, Sch Econ, Beijing, Peoples R China
[2] Nanjing Audit Univ, Econ Expt Lab, Nanjing, Jiangsu, Peoples R China
[3] Zhejiang Univ, Int Business Sch, Haining, Zhejiang, Peoples R China
[4] Zhejiang Univ, Sch Econ, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Zodiac year; Superstition; Risk preference; Pessimism; Experiment; Stock investment; Insurance purchase; GENDER-DIFFERENCES; AVERSION;
D O I
10.1016/j.chieco.2023.102043
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Previous studies have extensively confirmed that superstition profoundly influences a wide range of economically consequential decisions. However, the underlying mechanisms largely remain unexplored. Specifically, superstitions can affect either people's endogenous risk preferences or their subjective beliefs about uncertain events. Clarifying which of these two mechanisms is at work holds both policy and practical relevance. Notably, a change in risk preferences does not deviate from the conventional utility maximization framework, while a distortion in beliefs may lead to a welfare loss in decision-making. In this paper, we distinguish these two mechanisms using novel experimental methods, taking the Chinese zodiac year as an example. We find that the zodiac year correlates with both an increase in risk aversion and excessive pessimism in decisionmaking. Furthermore, we illustrate the potential impacts of zodiac year superstition on real-world businesses through two case studies.
引用
收藏
页数:22
相关论文
共 45 条
[1]   An exploration of the effects of pessimism and doubt on asset returns [J].
Abel, AB .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC DYNAMICS & CONTROL, 2002, 26 (7-8) :1075-1092
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2008, Of handbook of experimental economics results
[3]  
Ball S., 2021, Youth Reeducated: The Economic Preference Impacts of China's Send-Down Movement
[4]   Risk aversion and physical prowess: Prediction, choice and bias [J].
Ball, Sheryl ;
Eckel, Catherine C. ;
Heracleous, Maria .
JOURNAL OF RISK AND UNCERTAINTY, 2010, 41 (03) :167-193
[5]   GENDER DIFFERENCES IN RISK AVERSION AND AMBIGUITY AVERSION [J].
Borghans, Lex ;
Heckman, James J. ;
Golsteyn, Bart H. H. ;
Meijers, Huub .
JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION, 2009, 7 (2-3) :649-658
[6]  
Brown S., 2006, Educational attainment and risk preference
[7]   Violence and Risk Preference: Experimental Evidence from Afghanistan [J].
Callen, Michael ;
Isaqzadeh, Mohammad ;
Long, James D. ;
Sprenger, Charles .
AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2014, 104 (01) :123-148
[8]  
Camerer CF, 2004, ROUNDTABLE SER BEHAV, P1
[9]   Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences [J].
Charness, Gary ;
Gneezy, Uri ;
Imas, Alex .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR & ORGANIZATION, 2013, 87 :43-51
[10]  
Chen H. J., 2020, COUNTERCYCLICAL RISK