RİSK ALGISI VE GÖZ-TAKİBİ: ÜNİVERSİTE ÖĞRENCİLERİ ÜZERİNDE BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Year 2020, , 268 - 276, 31.12.2020

Murat Cınko Beril Durmus Emin Avcı

https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2020.1323

Abstract

Amaç- Bu çalışmanın amacı göz-takip tekniği ile üniversite öğrencilerinin risk algılarını analiz ederek, risk algısı, finansal okur-yazarlık ve finansal davranış arasındaki ilişkiyi ortaya koymaktır.
Yöntem – Katılımcıların risk algısı, finansal okur-yazarlık, finansal davranış ve demografik özelliklerinin ölçmek üzere 4 farklı anket uygulanmıştır. Risk algısını ölçmek için katılımcıların garanti para ile şans oyunu arasında tercih yapmaları istenmiştir. Katılımcılar sorulara cevap verirlerken, göz hareketleri göz takip cihazıyla kayıt altına alınmıştır. Elde edilen veri Ki kare testi, Fisher’s testi, İşaret testi ve Mann-Whitney U testi ile analiz edilmiştir.
Bulgular- Risk algısının değişmemesine rağmen garanti para seçeneğine oyunun daha erken aşamada geçiş olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Farklı senaryolar ve risk algılarında seçeneklere bakma sürelerinde farklılıklar bulunmuştur. Risk algısı, finansal okur-yazarlık ve finansal davranış arasında ilişki tespit edilememiştir.
Sonuç- Garanti para miktarının katılımcıların oyun/garanti para tercihlerini etkilediği; katılıcıların kimi senaryolar ve risk tutumları altında seçeneğe bakma süreleri değişmekle beraber göz hareketleri ile katılımcı finansal okur-yazarlık, finansal tutum ve finansal davranış arasında anlamlı bir ilişki olmadığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Keywords

Risk algısı, finansal okur-yazarlık, finansal davranış, göz takibi, karar verme

RISK PERCEPTION AND EYE-TRACKING: A RESEARCH ON UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

Abstract

Purpose- The purpose of this study is to analyze the risk perception of university students by the use of eye-tracking technique and reveal the relation between risk perception, financial literacy and financial behavior.
Methodology- In order to measure risk perception, financial literacy financial behavior and demographics of participants four different questionnaires were offered. To measure risk perception, participants were asked to make a choice between safe money and lottery game. While the participants were answering the questions, their eye movements were recorded via an eye-tracking device. The data was analyzed by Chi square test, Fisher’s test, Sign Test and Mann-Whitney U test.
Findings- The risk perception is not subject to change although switch to safe money option has been observed at early stages of games when the amount of safe money is increasing. There is a difference in gaze time under different scenarios and risk attitudes. No relation has found between eye movements, financial literacy and behavior.
Conclusion- The amount of safe money has an effect on participants’ choice on the lottery/safe money option; in spade of the finding on differences in fixation time under different scenarios and risk attitudes, no relation could be documented between eye movements, financial perception, financial behavior and financial literacy.

Keywords

Risk perception, financial literacy, financial behaviour, eye-tracking, decision making

References

• Atkinson, A., & Messy, F.-A. (2012). Measuring Financial Literacy: Results of the OECD/ International Network on Financial Education (INFE) Pilot Study (No. 15). OECD Publishing: OECD Working Papers on Finance, Insurance and Private Pensions. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k9csfs90fr4-en
• Bault, N., Wydoodt, P., & Coricelli, G. (2016). Different Attentional Patterns for Regret and Disappointment: An Eye-tracking Study. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29(2–3), 194–205. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1938
• Berg, J., Dickhaut, J. & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games Econ. Behav. 10, 122–142.
• Crosetto P. & Filippin A. (2016). A theoretical and experimental appraisal of four risk elicitation methods. Experimental Econonomics, 19, 613–641.
• Deck C., Lee J., Reyes J.A. & Rosen C.C. (2013). A failed attempt to explain within subject variation in risk taking behavior using domain specific risk attitudes. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 87, 1– 24.
• Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J. & Wagner, G.G. (2011). Individual risk attitudes: measurement, determinants and behavioral conse-quences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9, 522–550.
• Dohmen T., Falk A., Huffman D. & Uwe Sunde U. (2010). Are risk aversion and impatience related to cognitive ability?. American Economic Review, 100, 1238–1260.
• Dreber, A. & Hoffman, M. (2007). 2D: 4D and Risk Aversion: Evidence that the Gender Gap in Preferences is Partly Biological. Manuscript, Stockholm School of Economics.
• Dreber, A., Rand, D., Garcia, J., Wernerfelt, N., Lum, J. & Zeckhauser, R. (2010). Dopamine and Risk Preferences in Different Domains. Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government (Working Paper Series, rwp10-012).
• Fiedler, S., & Glöckner, A. (2012). The dynamics of decision making in risky choice: An eye-tracking analysis. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00335
• Franco-Watkins, A. M., & Johnson, J. G. (2011). Applying the decision moving window to risky choice: Comparison of eye-tracking and mouse-tracing methods. In Judgment and Decision Making (Vol. 6).
• Glöckner, A., & Herbold, A. K. (2011). An eye-tracking study on information processing in risky decisions: Evidence for compensatory strategies based on automatic processes. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24, 71–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.684
• Harrison G.W., Lau M.I. & Rutström E. E. (2007). Estimating risk attitudes in Denmark: A field experiment. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 109(2), 341–368.
• Holt, C.A. & Laury, S.K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 95, 902–904.
• Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2014). Assessment and estimation of risk preferences. Handbook of the Economics of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 135–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53685-3.00004-0
• Krajbich, I., Armel, C., & Rangel, A. (2010). Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice. Nature Neuroscience, 13(10), 1292–1298. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2635
• Lönnqvist J.E., Verkasalo M., Walkowitz G. & Wichardt P. C. (2015). Measuring individual risk attitudes in the lab: Task or ask? An empirical comparison. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 119, 254–266.
• OECD INFE (2011). Measuring financial literacy: core questionnaire in measuring financial literacy: questionnaire and guidance notes for conducting an internationally comparable survey of financial literacy.
• Oran, J. S., & Akyatan, A. (2012). A pilot study for measuring correlations between hormone levels and risk taking in men and women at different times of day. International Journal of Behavioural Accounting and Finance, 3(3/4), 202. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijbaf.2012.052177
• Orquin, J. L., & Mueller Loose, S. (2013). Attention and choice: A review on eye movements in decision making. Acta Psychologica, 144(1), 190–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.06.003
• Sarin R. & Wieland A. (2016). Risk aversion for decisions under uncertainty: Are there gender differences ? Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 60, 1–8.
• Stewart, N., Hermens, F., & Matthews, W. J. (2016). Eye Movements in Risky Choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29(2–3), 116–136. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1854
• Sutter M., Kocher m. G., Glätzle-Rützler D., & Trautmann S. T. (2013). Impatience and uncertainty: experimental decisions predict adolescents’ field behavior. American Economic Review, 103(1), 510–531.
• Vieider, F. M., Lefebvre, M., Bouchouicha, R., Chmura, T., Hakimov, R., Krawczyk, M., & Martinsson, P. (2015). Common components of risk and uncertainty attitudes across contexts and domains: Evidence from 30 countries. Journal of the European Economic Association, 13(3), 421–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeea.12102