Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 80 (2019) 14–24

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbee

Personality, decision-making styles and investments T

Elisa Gambetti , Fiorella Giusberti
⁎

Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, Viale Berti Pichat 5, 40127 Bologna, Italy

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Three hundred and sixty-two participants completed the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire and the
Personality traits General Decision-Making Styles Inventory, together with a survey considering investment perceptions and de-
Decision-making styles cisions. The results showed that anxious people tended to save money and avoid investments, perceiving high
Investment decisions risks and low control and returns, whereas individuals with high Extroversion, Independence and Self-Control
Financial behaviour
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 mediated by differences in people's decision-making habits, that is de-

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
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

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: e.gambetti@unibo.it (E. Gambetti).

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
Available online 08 March 2019
2214-8043/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
E. Gambetti and F. Giusberti Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 80 (2019) 14–24

Table 1
Big five and 16pf factors.
Big five factors (Costa and McCrae) 16PF global factors (Cattell) 16PF primary factors (Cattell)

Extroversion/introversion
Neuroticism/emotional stability
Conscientiousness/lack of direction
Closedness to experience/openness
Antagonism/agreeableness
Extroversion/introversion
High anxiety/low anxiety
Self-control/lack of restraint
Tough-mindedness/receptivity
Independence/accomodation
Warmth (+), Liveliness (+), Social boldness (+), Privateness (−), Self-reliance (−)
Emotional stability (−), Vigilance (+), Apprehension (+), Tension (+)
Liveliness (−), Rule-consciousness (+), Abstractedness (−), Perfectionism (+)
Warmth (−), Sensitivity (−), Abstractedness (−) Openness to change (−)
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.

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

15
E. Gambetti and F. Giusberti
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
16
Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 80 (2019) 14–24
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
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,
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the mediation effects of decision making styles in the relationship between personality traits and the decision to invest.
17
Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 80 (2019) 14–24
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
E. Gambetti and F. Giusberti Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 80 (2019) 14–24

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’α 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’α 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 the definition provided by Blades and Sturm (2016).
“Savers” (26% of the whole) hold investment products that pay low,
fixed rates of interest or dividends such as bank deposits and/or in-
surance products. “Investors” (28%) invest money in products that pay
medium/high and variable rates of interest or dividends such as shares
(8.5%), mutual funds (8.6%), state and industrial bonds (9.2%). Only
1.7% of the sample did not respond.
Investment perceptions were measured by the other three questions
in the questionnaire. Participants were asked to rate the return pre-
dictability (question C: “How predictable do you believe the trend of
the investment to be?”) of each kind of investment listed in question B
(or, if they had never invested, investments proposed by researchers
concerning shares, mutual funds, state bonds, industrial bonds, in-
surance products, and bank deposits), on a 10-point scale. They were
also asked about their perception of risks (question D: “What is the
degree of risk, that is the possibility of losing money, you perceive?”)
and their perception of returns (question E: “What is the degree of
profit, that is the possibility of earning money, you expect?”).
2.3. Preliminary analyses
The sample was quite evenly distributed with 46% that had never
invested money, and 54% that had decided to invest. This result is in
line with the CONSOB annual report (2016), showing that 50% of Ita-
lians have at least one financial product. Because people who actually
invested (answered “yes” to question A) could have different answers
about investment perceptions (C, D, E questions) to those who did not
invest, we performed a multivariate ANOVA considering as an in-
dependent variable the responses to question A and as dependent
variables the average scores regarding predictability, risk and returns
perceptions about investments. The results did not show any significant
effect [stock trend predictability: F(1361) = 1.76, P = .18; risk: F
(1361) = 0.18, P = .67], except for perceptions about returns [F
(1361) = 6.05, P = .019]. Specifically, people who actually invested
perceived a higher possibility of earning money from their investments
(M = 47.96, SD = 14.86) than people who did not invest (M = 40.26,
SD = 20.66). For this reason, the subsequent analyses about returns
perceptions considered only respondents who actually have invest-
ments (N = 194).
Table 2 shows descriptives and intercorrelations, controlling for
demographics and financial experience, between the principal measures
of the study.

Table 2
Means, standard deviations and partial correlations, controlling for demographics and financial experience, of all the principal measures.
Mean (SD) Inter-correlations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1. Decision to invest (A) 0.72 (0.45) –

2. Savers/Investors (B) 1.68 (0.46) .24⁎⁎ –
3. Predictability (C) 4.62 (2.17) .23⁎⁎ .17* –
4. Risks (D) 4.77 (1.84) .01 −.03 −.29⁎⁎ –
5. Returns (E) 4.17 (1.99) .12 .07 .34⁎⁎ .05 –
6. Extroversion 4.16 (2.04) .14* .04 .09 −.21* .06 –
7. Anxiety 5.46 (1.98) −.15* −.15* −.15* .13* −.14* −.19* –
8. Tough-mindedness 6.19 (1.95) −.02 .01 .16* .14* −.12 −.26⁎⁎ −.06 –
9. Independence 4.97 (1.82) .07 .15* .05 .17* .19* .20⁎⁎ .14* −.45⁎⁎ –
10. Self-Control 6.33 (1.80) .20⁎⁎ .16* .15* −.06 −.07 −.19* −.04 .40⁎⁎ −.25⁎⁎ –
11. Rational 19.18 (2.68) .15* .16* −.01 .06 −.01 −.07 .05 .25⁎⁎ .04 .35⁎⁎ –
12. Intuitive 17.23 (2.99) .05 .08 .06 .03 −.09 .11 −.04 −.15* .01 −.11 −.22⁎⁎ –
13. Dependent 17.21 (3.94) .20⁎⁎ .15* −.11 .02 −.06 .20⁎⁎ .08 .15* −.17* .07 .25⁎⁎ −.02 –
14. Avoidant 13.27 (3.97) −.15* −.13* −.27⁎⁎ −.01 −.04 −.13* .27⁎⁎ .07 −.23⁎⁎ −.15* −.03 .06 .42⁎⁎ –
15. Spontaneous 12.78 (3.50) .04 −.01 .03 −.14* .01 .13* .11 −.05 .05 −.29⁎⁎ −.49⁎⁎ .35⁎⁎ −.24⁎⁎ .10

Notes:
⁎
P < .05.
⁎⁎
P < .01.

18
E. Gambetti and F. Giusberti Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 80 (2019) 14–24

2.4. Data analyses
In order to evaluate whether personality predicts investment decisions
(see Hypothesis 1) and investment perceptions (see Hypothesis 2 for the
perception of stock trend predictability, and Hypothesis 3 for the per-
ception of risks and returns), hierarchical multiple regression analyses
were performed. These analyses evaluated the contributor of predictors
above and beyond previously entered predictors, controlling for their
statistical effects and examining the incremental validity. In step 1 de-
mographics, that is age, gender, years in school, household income, and
experience in economic/financial topics, were considered. For all analyses
using gender as a variable, we coded females as -1 and males as 1. In step 2
the five 16PF-5 global factors, that is Extroversion, Anxiety, Tough-
Mindedness, Independence and Self-Control, were considered as in-
dependent variables on investment decisions (scores on question A of the
investment questionnaire and on the dichotomous variable from question
B), on perceived stock trend predictability (the average score of questions
C), on risk perception (the average score of questions D), and on percep-
tion of returns (the average score of questions E, filtered by question A).
To further examine the association between personality traits and
investment decisions and perceptions, we also performed, for the de-
pendent variables considered in the present study, separate hierarchical
OLS regression analyses about each 16PF-5 personality global factor
that was significant in the previous regression analysis. We considered
as independent variables the 16PF-5 primary scales that contributed to
make up each global factor, controlling for demographics and financial
experience in step 1. The results are shown in the Appendix.
In order to evaluate whether decision-making styles predict in-
vestment decisions (see Hypothesis 4), hierarchical regression analysis
was performed considering as independent variables the five scores of
GDMS, that is Rational, Intuitive, Dependent, Avoidant and Sponta-
neous styles, controlling for demographics and financial experience in
step 1, on investment decisions.
Finally, in order to test Hypothesis 5, path analyses were performed
to assess whether there were indirect effects of 16PF-5 global factors,
through decision-making styles, on investment decisions.
Multicollinearity diagnostics suggested adequate independence of
all predictors (all tolerance levels < .80; see Tabachnick and
Fidell, 2007).
3. Results
3.1. Personality and investment decisions
Supporting Hypothesis 1, the logistic regressions analysis on
question A scores showed that Anxiety was negatively associated with
the decision to invest, whereas Extroversion and Self-Control were
positively associated, controlling for demographics and experience in
the financial field. The analysis failed to find a significant relation be-
tween Tough-Mindedness, Independence and owning investments. The
regression coefficients are shown in Table 3.
The logistic regression analyses on the dichotomous variable from
answers on question B, controlling for gender and financial experience,
showed that Anxiety was associated with the decision to save money
(see Table 3). As shown in Table 3, Independence and Self-Control were
associated with the decision to invest. Tough-Mindedness and Ex-
troversion global factors remained the 16PF-5 personality factors that
did not predict investment decisions in the present sample.
3.2. Personality and investment perceptions
The results of the regression analyses of investment perceptions on
the five personality global factors are shown in Table 4. Firstly, they
reveal that the perceived stock trend predictability was negatively
predicted by Anxiety, and positively by Tough-Mindedness and Self-
Control. Secondly, the perception of risks was positively predicted by
Anxiety, Independence and Tough-Mindedness, and negatively by Ex-
troversion. Thirdly, the perception of returns was negatively predicted
by Anxiety and positively by Independence.
3.3. Decision-making styles and investment decisions
Table 5 displays coefficents obtained from regressing scores from
questions about investment decisions on decision-making styles, con-
trolling for demographics and financial experience. Supporting
Hypothesis 4, rational decision-making style was positively associated
with the decision to invest in different kinds of stocks, while avoidant
style was negatively associated with this financial decision predicting
the decision to save money. Contrary to the hypothesis, dependent style
positively predicted the decision to invest. The analyses failed to find a
significant relation between intuitive and spontaneous styles and in-
vestment decisions.
Since, from previous analyses, significant relationships between the
Independence trait and investments were not found (in this hypothe-
tical relationship the dependent decision-making style could have a
mediation role), such as between intuitive and spontaneous styles
(which could mediate Tough-Mindedness and Extroversion) and in-
vestment decisions, only two mediations among those hypothesized
were tested (see Fig. 1 and Hypothesis 5). Therefore, in order to assess if
rational and avoidant decision-making styles mediate, respectively, the

Table 3
Logistic regressions of the decision to invest and the kind of investment on 16PF-5 global factors (Step 2) controlling for demographics and financial experience (Step
1).
Investment decision (N = 362) Savers vs. investors (N = 258)

Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2

Parameter B (S.E.) Wald P B (S.E.) Wald P B (S.E.) Wald P B (S.E.) Wald P

Age .03 (.02) 4.41 .036 .04 (.02) 5.21 .022 .001 (.01) .001 .974 .001 (.01) .006 .937
Gender .44 (.19) 5.58 .018 .71 (.22) 10.49 .001 .52 (.17) 8.73 .003 .61 (.19) 10.33 .001
Education −.57 (.28) 4.80 .043 −.60 (.30) 4.04 .044 .07 (.26) .09 .767 −.07 (.26) .08 .773
Income .41 (.15) 7.77 .005 .43 (.16) 7.14 .008 .20 (.13) 2.26 .133 .19 (.14) 1.87 .171
Experience .15 (.11) 1.88 .170 .20 (.12) 2.41 .120 −.02 (1.26) .03 .870 −.03 (.11) .09 .764
Extroversion .22 (.09) 5.82 .016 .08 (.10) 1.21 .270
Anxiety −.23 (.09) 5.10 .015 −.46 (.07) 8.71 .003
Tough-mindedness .02 (.10) .02 .871 .05 (.09) .30 .583
Independence .05 (.10) .27 .604 .22 (.09) 4.66 .048
Self-control .53 (.11) 21.61 .001 .29 (.09) 4.11 .046
R2 .22; χ2 = 41.74 .001 .36; χ2 = 31.55 .012 .11; χ2 = 20.16 .001 .13; χ2 = 30.12 .010

Notes: Logistic regressions of investment decision (question A) and savers/investors (question B). The dependent variables are dichotomous: question A (0 = no,
1 = yes), question B (1 = saver, 2 = investor). S.E. = Standard Error.

19
E. Gambetti and F. Giusberti Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 80 (2019) 14–24

Table 4
OLS regressions: personality traits and investment perceptions.
Predictability (N = 362) Risks (N = 362) Returns (N = 194)

Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2

Parameter β t P β t P β t P β t P β t P β t P

Age −.06 −.87 .250 −.07 .98 .325 .07 0.96 .360 .08 1.18 .239 −.14 −1.97 .046 −.13 −1.79 .074
Gender .16 2.25 .037 .21 2.91 .004 −.36 −5.11 .001 −.32 -4.46 .001 .06 .84 .426 .08 1.14 .255
Education .24 3.36 .001 .22 3.08 .002 −.10 −1.45 .171 −.13 -1.85 .065 .18 2.39 .030 .16 2.15 .033
Income −0.06 −0.74 .485 −0.08 −1.01 .310 .23 2.95 .004 .17 2.23 .027 .06 0.45 .449 .06 .32 .747
Experience .24 3.83 .001 .22 4.10 .001 .05 −.74 .442 −04 −.74 .460 .05 0.40 .412 .08 .79 .425
Extroversion .11 1.61 .112 −.14 −1.99 .015 .03 0.38 .712
Anxiety −.16 −2.56 .005 .14 1.83 .027 −.14 −1.99 .047
Tough-mindedness −.23 −3.01 .002 .15 1.93 .014 −.03 −0.35 .790
Independence −.08 −1.13 .297 .16 1.83 .027 .14 1.99 .045
Self-control .16 2.29 .039 −.03 −.48 .541 −.01 −.10 .848
Adjusted R2 .12 .001 .05 .001 .13 .001 .06 .001 .05 .004 .08 .003

Notes: OLS regressions of perceived stock trend predictability (question C), perceived risks (question D), and perceived returns (question E) on demographic variables
and personality traits. The dependent variables ranged from 0 (absolutely no) to 10 (absolutely yes).

Table 5
Logistic regressions of the decision to invest and the kind of investment on decision-making styles (step 2) controlling for demographics (step 1).
Investment decision (N = 362) Savers vs. investors (N = 194)

Step 2 Step 2
Parameter B (S.E.) Wald P B (S.E.) Wald P

Age .06 (.02) 8.58 .027 .01 (.02) .56 .981

Gender .55 (.21) 6.65 .030 .55 (.19) 8.27 .003
Education −.57 (.31) 3.51 .149 −.04 (.26) .02 .801
Income .34 (.16) 4.57 .007 .17 (.14) 1.40 .158
Experience .29 (.13) 5.05 .037 .01 (.11) .01 .892
Rational .20 (07) 9.33 .010 .16 (.06) 7.89 .003
Intuitive .06 (.05) .86 .222 .04 (.06) .49 .569
Dependent .19 (.05) 10.99 .001 .11 (.05) 4.70 .042
Avoidant −.17 (.05) 8.94 .002 −.10 (.05) 4.51 .039
Spontaneous .09 (.06) 2.73 .794 .02 (.06) .14 .783
R2 .36; χ2 = 30.92 .0001 .16; χ2 = 20.16 .002

Note: The regression coefficents of Step 1 for both analyses are shown in Table 3.

influence of Self-Control and Anxiety on the decision to invest two path
analyses, one for each personality trait, were conducted. Personality
traits were considered exogenous variables and decision-making styles
endogenous variables. Good models fitting the data were found: the
model about Self-Control (see Fig. 2) did not differ significantly from a
fully saturated model [χ2(6) = 2.82, P = .22], such as the model about
Anxiety (see Fig. 3) [χ2(6) = 2.59, P = .21]. The standardized regres-
sion weights for the indirect effects on investment decisions were .23
for Self-Control through rational style, and −.19 for Anxiety through
avoidant style.
4. Conclusions
This study gives a contribution to a better understanding of the
relationships between personality, decision-making styles and invest-
ment decision-making. First of all, regarding the control variables
gender, income and experience (only for perceived stock trend pre-
dictability) were the factors that regularly predict perceptions and de-
cisions about investments. These results are in line with both the studies
suggesting that men are prone to take more risk investments than
women (e.g., Dwyer et al., 2002); and research showing that

Fig. 2. Mediation model about self-control.

20
E. Gambetti and F. Giusberti
Fig. 3. Mediation model about anxiety.
respondents with more investment experience had more risk-tolerant
responses and higher-risk portfolios than less experienced investors
(Chen and Corter, 2005; Gambetti and Giusberti, 2012).
Hypothesis 1 was confirmed showing that, controlling for demo-
graphics and financial experience, personality traits, except for Tough-
Mindedness, predict decision-making about investments. Specifically,
the present findings show that anxious individuals, characterized by
high levels of apprehension, tension and vigilance, are prone not to
invest or to save money. This result is in accordance with previous
studies suggesting that neuroticism, which is associated with tenseness,
moodiness, insecurity and anxiety, is related to avoidant risk-taking
(Lauriola et al., 2014; Paunonen and Ashton, 2001). It is also in line
with recent studies showing that anxious individuals prefer interest-
bearing accounts rather than investments (van Winden et al., 2011) and
low risky asset classes and portfolios (Oehler et al., 2017; Gambetti and
Giusberti, 2012). The 16PF model, used in this study, allows differ-
entiation between anxiety and impulsivity personality dimensions,
which are included as facets of the broader trait of neuroticism in the
Big Five model (Costa and McCrae, 1992), shedding more light on
predictions about investment decision-making.
Moreover, the present study shows that people with high self-con-
trol and self-discipline (low impulsivity) and who are practical and
solution oriented are prone to invest their money in different kinds of
stocks, industrials and state bonds, confirming that self-control me-
chanisms are positively related to spending on investments and dur-
ables (Dewberry et al., 2013).
Two other dimensions of personality to be considered are ex-
troversion and independence, both positively correlated with the de-
cision to invest in stocks, which is commonly perceived as risky in the
investment literature (Lorenz and Truck, 2008; Goodman, 2003). The
present data shows that a specific aspect of extroversion, which is li-
veliness, predicts investment decisions. These findings confirm that
extroverted individuals, who are optimistic and outgoing, are likely to
make financially risky decisions and take the initiative to begin in-
vesting (Oehler et al., 2017; Mayfield et al., 2008), although sometimes
they can fail when using background knowledge, showing a lack of
ability in making financial decisions (Dewberry et al., 2013).
Finally, people who score high in independence of mind, asser-
tiveness and ability to influence others, are more likely to invest than
people who are vigilant, suspicious and skeptical. This result is in ac-
cordance with research on Ultimatum Game, showing that independent
and self-determining people demand higher return shares
(Brandstätter and Königstein, 2001). Moreover, given the relationship
between Independence and dis-agreeableness (Rossier et al., 2004), this
finding is also in line with studies which provide evidence that dis-
agreeableness correlates with willingness to assume risk (Kowert and
Hermann, 1997).
Hypothesis 2 was partially confirmed: Anxiety and Tough-Mind-
edness are negatively related to the perception of stock trend predict-
ability, whereas people sympathetic to others, flexible, and open to
21
Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 80 (2019) 14–24
change (who score low on Tough-Mindedness) have the perception to
forecast the variation in stock trends. This result is in line with previous
studies suggesting that negative emotional states, such as worry and
anxiety, induce people to lack confidence in their ability to evaluate
investment options (Gambetti and Giusberti, 2012; van Winden et al.,
2011; Judge and Bono, 2001), whereas openness, which is related to
descriptors such as wide and unconventional interests (Costa and
McCrae, 1992), correlates with long-term investment choices
(Mayfield et al., 2008).
As regards Self-Control, people with practical and solution oriented
thinking are more likely to perceive high control over the variation in
stock trends. This finding is consistent with other research suggesting a
positive correlation between the Big Five factor conscientiousness,
which is aligned with 16PF-5 Self-Control global factor (Cattell and
Schuerger, 2003), and the perception of control about investments
(Mayfield et al., 2008).
Hypothesis 3 was partially confirmed: impatient, suspicious and
withdrawn individuals (high Anxiety), but also introverted, timid, in-
hibited, unsociable and traditionalist people (high Tough-Mindedness,
low Extroversion and low Independence) perceive high risks about in-
vestment decisions. This data confirms investment literature showing
that anxious individuals are prone to perceive high levels of uncertainty
and risks (Gambetti and Giusberti, 2012; van Winden, Krawczyk, and
Hopfensitz, 2011; Maner et al., 2007), whereas sociability and openness
to new experiences are correlated to high levels of risk acceptance in
the financial field (Zuckerman and Kuhlman, 2000; Fenton O'Creevy
et al., 2004). In turn, self-assessed risk predicts investment behaviour
(e.g., Bailey and Kinerson, 2005). It is well established in the literature
that people do not assess investment risk objectively, considering the
variance of stock utility, when deciding on which solution to invest in
(Parker and Fischhoff, 2005). On the contrary, the perception of the
risks in the financial field is predicted by different factors, such as de-
mographic variables and individual dispositions (e.g., Olsen and
Cox, 2001). This study also shows that the perception of expected re-
turns differs from person to person: placid and relaxed individuals, not
easily upset or aroused, but also competitive, who think strategically,
and showing low tendencies to guilt or self-doubt (low Anxiety and high
Independence) tend to perceive greater returns associated with shares,
industrials and state bonds.
It is worthy of note that the Self-Control global factor only predicts
stock trend predictability, but it is not significantly correlated with risk
and return perceptions about investments. This finding offhand seems
inconsistent with research that found an influence of impulsivity (low
Self-Control) on the underestimation of the risks in different situations
(Jia et al., 2015). However, impulsivity is a complex concept, which is
measured by different personality traits: lack of self-discipline (low Self-
control or conscientiousness), and lack of ability to defer urges and
impulses (high Anxiety or neuroticism) (Costa and McCrae, 1992).
Therefore, since trait anxiety affects the perception of investment risks
and returns, as mentioned above, the present results still confirm the
E. Gambetti and F. Giusberti
importance of impulsivity on these assessments. Future research is
needed concerning the prediction and explanation of impulsivity on
investment perceptions and decisions.
Hypothesis 4 was only confirmed for rational and avoidant deci-
sion-making styles. Specifically, this study shows that people with a
rational style are prone to invest money, probably considering and
analyzing different available financial, economic and environmental
information before deciding to invest in any instruments of the capital
market. Previous studies show that rational individuals make accurate
decisions and obtain positive outcomes in several domains, such as
academic achievement (Baiocco et al., 2009) and job satisfaction
(Crossley and Highhouse, 2005), also becoming successful in their fi-
nancial activities (Jamal et al., 2014). Moreover, in the present study
people with dependent and avoidant decision-making styles seem to
make opposite decisions about the management of their money. These
two decision-making styles are both linked to a sense of lacking per-
sonal certainty and self-efficacy (Lubna Rahman, 2014; Gambetti et al.,
2008; Thunholm, 2004) and represent different ways of approaching
financial situations: the first is characterized by searching for advice
and guidance from others, leading them to invest their savings. The
second style, principally defined by decision-making procrastination,
leads people to avoid the decision to invest, resulting in negative out-
comes (Wood and Highhouse, 2014).
Hypothesis 5 was partially confirmed: the results suggest that ra-
tional and avoidant styles mediate the relationship between Self-Con-
trol and Anxiety, respectively, and investment decisions. People with a
high ability to control their own impulses tend to invest using the ra-
tional style that allows them to consider carefully and thoroughly dif-
ferent investment choices and to choose the most suitable for them (see
also Dewberry et al., 2013). On the contrary, highly anxious individuals
tend to worry when they have to make decisions and to use the avoi-
dant style in order to reduce uncertainty and to protect themselves from
potential risks and threats (Bensi and Giusberti, 2007; Maner et al.,
2007). This study highlights that decision-making styles add an im-
portant perspective to understanding how personality influences fi-
nancial decision-making, and more specifically, investment decisions.
This study expands previous research (Jamal et al., 2014; Muhammad
and Abdullah, 2009; Grable and Joo, 2004) by considering traditional
personality variables and decision-making styles simultaneously.
Moreover it provides a strong argument for the importance and impact
that habitual patterns and tendencies in the way a person approaches
decisions and problems can have on investment decisions. However,
future studies are needed to allow more insight into how personality
and decision-making styles interact by influencing investment decision-
making.
4.1. Implications
Despite the limitations of this study, such as the self-reported data
and the results based only on correlations, these findings may be of
considerable importance for the theoretical and practical implications.
From a theoretical point of view, the results of this study could improve
understanding of how individual differences influence investment per-
ceptions and subsequent decisions, thus expanding knowledge about
the relationship between personality traits or decision-making styles
and specific decision-making patterns (Maner et al., 2007;
Kozhevnikov, 2007).
At the application level, this research can be considered as a part of
the growing field of behavioral finance, which had some success in
explaining how certain groups of investors behave and, in particular,
what kinds of portfolios they choose to hold (e.g., Campbell, 2006).
Although some studies indicate that risk and behavioural assessments
are not always able to predict financial behaviour (Ackert, 2014), this
research shows that specific personality traits are associated to per-
ceptions and decisions about investments. Thus, it could provide useful
information for both investors, helping them to be more aware of their
22
Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 80 (2019) 14–24
own perceptions and decisions about investments and to select better
investment options, as well as financial educators, counselors and
planners, through the modulation of differentiated financial proposals,
depending on the individual characteristics of their clients. From the
financial planner's perspective, investor behavior often deviates from
logic and reason, thus increasing the difficulty of comprehending cli-
ents’ judgements (Ackert, 2014). This research suggests that financial
operators could pay more attention to the personality traits and deci-
sion-making styles of their clients by submitting short questionnaires in
order to understand their perceptions and behavior more fully.
Appendix
As regards the question A, two primary scales of Anxiety, that is
Apprehension (B = −0.57, SE = 0.28, Wald=4.08, P = .032) and
Tension (B = −0.44, SE = 0.18, Wald=5.58, P = .039), negatively
predicted the decision to invest (χ2 = 41.74, P = .001, R2 = .22);
whereas two primary scales of Extroversion (χ2 = 48.63, P = .001,
R2 = .25), namely Liveliness (B = .69, SE = .30, Wald=5.13,
P = .025) and Forthrightness (B = .38, SE = .15, Wald=6.31,
P = .041), and two primary scales of Self-Control (χ2 = 30.96,
P = .001, R2 = .36), that are Perfectionism (B = .28, SE = .09,
Wald=10.03, P = .001) and Practicality (B = .25, SE = .13,
Wald=3.92, P = .013), positively predicted owning investments.
As regards the question B, the regression analyses on the Anxiety
primary scales showed that only Vigilance (B = .21, SE = .08,
Wald=7.36, P = .017) predicted the decision to save money
(χ2 = 9.39, P = .041, R2 = 0.16).
As for the primary scale of Independence, trusting (B = .18,
SE = .07, Wald=6.09, P = .014) and dominant (B = .27, SE = .14,
Wald=3.59, P = .032) people are prone to invest money (χ2 = 9.95,
P = .048, R2 = .16); while Perfectionism (B = .49, SE = .18,
Wald=7.32, P = .012), a primary scale of Self-Control, predicted the
decision to invest in different kinds of stocks (χ2 = 20.16, P = .012,
R2 = .11).
As regards the stock trend predictability, the subsequent regression
on Anxiety primary scales showed that Tension (β = −.20, P = .006),
Vigilance (β = −.18, P = .007) and Reaction (β = −.23, P = .006)
negatively predicted this perception [F(4360) = 4.89, P = .001, ad-
justed R2 = .06]. The regressions on Tough-Mindedness [F
(4360) = 3.00, P = .007, adjusted R2 = .03] and Self-Control [F
(4360) = 2.33, P = .042, adjusted R2 = .02] primary scales showed
that unsentimental (β = .13, P = .022), practical (Tough-Mindedness
model: β = .17, P = .042; Self-Control model: β = .22, P = .017) and
traditional people (β = .15, P = .030) are prone to perceive high stock
trend predictability.
As for the perception of risks, the regression analysis on Anxiety
primary scales showed that tense (β = .14, P = .027), vigilant (β = .17,
P = .021) and reactive (β = .14, P = .027) people perceived high risks
[F(4360) = 2.80, P = .008, adjusted R2 = .03]. The regressions on
Independence [F(4360) = 5.47, P = .005, adjusted R2 = .07] and
Tough-Mindedness [F(4360) = 5.17, P = .003, adjusted R2 = .07]
primary scales showed that shy (β = .19, P = .013), reserved (β = .18,
P = .002), traditional (Independence model: β = .21, P = .003; Tough-
Mindedness model: β = .24, P = .002) and vigilant (β = .15, P = .012)
people perceived high risks. The regression analysis on Extroversion
primary scales showed that Liveliness (β = −.19, P = .025) and Social
Boldness (β = −.15, P = .031) negatively predicted risk perception [F
(5359) = 3.14, P = .001, adjusted R2 = .04].
Finally as for the perception of returns, the regressions showed that
Tension (β = −.17, P = .030) was the significant primary scale for the
Anxiety global factor [F(4190) = 2.64, P = .033, adjusted R2 = .03]
and Vigilance (β = .14, P = .047) for that of Independence [F
(4190) = 2.76, P = .024, adjusted R2 = .03].
E. Gambetti and F. Giusberti
References
Ackert, Lucy F., 2014. Traditional and behavioral finance. In: Kent Baker, H., Riccardi,
Victor (Eds.), Investor Behavior: The Psychology of Financial Planning and Investing.
John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, pp. 25–41.
Ali, Azwadi, 2011. “Predicting individual investors’ intention to invest: An experimental
analysis of attitude as a mediator. Int. J. Soc. Behav. Edu. Econ. Bus. Ind. Eng. 5 (2),
157–164 doi: scholar.waset.org/1307-6892/12254.
Bailey, Jeffrey J., Kinerson, Chris, 2005. “Regret avoidance and risk tolerance. J. Financ.
Couns. Plan. 16 (1), 23–28.
Baiocco, Roberto, Laghi, Fiorenzo, D'Alessio, Maria, 2009. “Decision-making style among
adolescents: Relationship with sensation seeking and locus of control. J. Adolesc. 32
(4), 963–976. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.adolescence.2008.08.003.
Bensi, Luca, Giusberti, Fiorella, 2007. “Trait anxiety and reasoning under uncertainty.
Pers. Individ. Dif. 43 (4), 827–838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.02.007.
Blades, Derek W., Sturm, Peter H., 2016. The concept and measurements of savings: The
United States and other industrialized countries. Savings and Government Policy,
Conference Series, n 25. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Boston, pp. 1–30.
Brandstätter, Hermann, Königstein, Manfred, 2001. “Personality influences on ultimatum
bargaining decisions. Eur. J. Pers. 15 (1), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.424.
Brown, Sarah, Taylor, Karl, 2014. “Household finances and the ‘big five’ personality
traits. J. Econ. Psychol. 45, 197–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2014.10.006.
Campbell, John Y., 2006. “Household finance. J. Finance 61 (4), 1553–1604. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2006.00883.x.
Cattell, Heater E.P., Schuerger, James M., 2003. Essentials of 16PF Assessment. John
Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.
Cattell, Raymond B., Cattell, Karen S., Cattell, Heater E.P., 1993. 16PF Fifth Edition
Questionnaire. Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Champaign, IL.
Cattell, Raymond B., Eber, Herbert, Tatsuoka, Maurice, 1970. Handbook For the Sixteen
Personality Factor Questionnaire. Institute for Personality and Ability Testing,
Champaign, IL.
Chen, Yuh-Jia, Corter, James E, 2005. “When mixed options are preferred in multiple-
trial decision making. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 18 (1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/
bdm.512.
Consob, 2016. Report on financial investments of Italian households. Retrieved from: http://
www.consob.it/documents.
Costa, Paul T., McCrae, Robert R., 1992. “Normal personality assessment in clinical
practice: The NEO personality inventory. Psychol. Assess. 4 (1), 5–13. https://doi.
org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.5.
Crossley, Craig D., Highhouse, Scott, 2005. “Relation of job search and choice process
with subsequent satisfaction. J. Econ. Psychol. 26 (2), 255–268 doi: dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.joep.2004.04.001.
Dewberry, Chris, Juanchich, Marie, Narendran, Sunitha, 2013. Decision-making compe-
tence in everyday life: The roles of general cognitive styles, decision-making styles
and personality. Pers. Individ. Dif. 55 (7), 783–788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.
2013.06.012.
Dohmen, Thomas, Falk, Armin, Huffman, David, et al., 2011. “Individual risk attitudes:
Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 9 (3),
522–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01015.x.
Donnelly, Grant, Iyer, Ravi, Howell, Ryan T., 2012. “The big five personality traits, ma-
terial values, and financial well-being of self-described money managers. J. Econ.
Psychol. 33 (6), 1129–1142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2012.08.001.
Durand, Robert, Newby, Rick, Sanghani, Jay, 2008. “An intimate portrait of the in-
dividual investor. J. Behav. Finance 9 (4), 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15427560802341020.
Dwyer, Peggy D., Gilkeson, James H., List, John H., 2002. “Gender differences in revealed
risk taking: Evidence from mutual fund investors. Econ. Lett. 76 (2), 151–158.
Fenton O'Creevy, Mark, Nicholson, Nigel, Soane, Emma, Willman, Paul, 2004. Traders:
Risks, decisions, and Management in Financial Markets. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Gambetti, Elisa, Giusberti, Fiorella, 2012. “The effect of anger and anxiety traits on in-
vestment decisions. J. Econ. Psychol. 33 (6), 1059–1069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
joep.2012.07.001.
Gambetti, Elisa, Fabbri, Marco, Bensi, Luca, Tonetti, Lorenzo, 2008. A contribution to the
Italian Validation of the General Decision-Making Style Inventory. Pers. Ind. Dif. 44
(4), 842–852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.017.
Goldberg, Lewis R., 1990. An alternative “description of personality”: The big-five factor
structure. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 59 (6), 1216–1229.
Goodman, J., 2003. Homeownership and investment in real estate stocks. J. Real Est.
Port. Manag. 9 (2), 93–105.
Grable, John E., Joo, So Hyun, 2004. Environmental and biophysical factors associated
with financial risk tolerance. J. Financ.Couns. Plan. 15 (1), 73–82.
Grinblatt, Mark, Keloharju, Matti, 2009. Sensation seeking, overconfidence, and trading
activity. J. Finance 64 (2), 549–578. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2009.
01443.x.
Hogarth, Robin M., Einhorn, Hillel J., 1992. “Order effects in belief updating: The belief-
adjustment model. Cognit. Psychol. 24 (1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-
0285(92)90002-J.
Hopfensitz, Astrid, van Winden, Frans, 2008. Dynamic choice, independence and emo-
tions. Theory Decis. 64 (2–3), 249–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-007-
9058-y.
Jamal, Amer Azlan Abdul, Ramlan, Wijaya Kamal, Pazim, Khairul Hanim, Budin, Dayang
Safrina Ag, 2014. Decision-making style and investment success of retail investors in
Malaysia. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 5 (9), 311–322.
Jia, Jayson S., Khan, Uzma, Litt, Ab, 2015. “The effect of self-control on the construction
23
Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 80 (2019) 14–24
of risk perceptions. Manag. Sci. 61 (9), 2259–2280. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.
2014.2098.
Judge, Timothy A., Bono, Joyce E., 2001. “Relationship of core self-evaluations traits -
self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability - with
job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 86 (1),
80–92. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.1.80.
Kowert, P.A., Hermann, M.G., 1997. Who takes risks? Daring and caution in foreign
policy making. J. Conflict Resolut. 41 (5), 611–637.
Kozhevnikov, Maria, 2007. “Cognitive styles in the context of modem psychology:
Toward an integrated framework of cognitive style. Psychol. Bull. 133 (3), 464–481.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.3.464.
Lauriola, Marco, Panno, Angelo, Levin, Irwin P, Lejuez, Carl W., 2014. Individual dif-
ferences in risky decision making: A meta-analysis of sensation seeking and im-
pulsivity with the balloon analogue risk task. J. Behav. Decis.Mak. 27 (1), 20–36.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1784.
Leykin, Yan, DeRubeis, Robert J., 2010. Decision-making styles and depressive sympto-
matology. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 5 (7), 506–515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-010-
9308-0.
Lorenz, D., Trück, S., 2008. Risk and return in European property markets: an empirical
investigation. J. Eur. Real Estate Res. 1 (3), 235–253.
Maner, Jon K., Anthony Richey, J., Cromer, Kiara, Mallott, Mike, et al., 2007.
“Dispositional anxiety and risk-avoidant decision-making. Pers. Individ. Dif. 42 (4),
665–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.08.016.
Mayfield, Cliff, Perdue, Grady, Wooten, Kevin, 2008. “Investment management and
personality type. Financ. Services Rev. 17, 219–236.
McCrae, Robert R., Costa, Paul T., 2004. “A contemplated revision of the NEO Five-Factor
Inventory. Pers.Individ. Dif. 36 (3), 587–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-
8869(03)00118-1.
Mudrack, Peter, 2007. “Individual personality factors that affect normative beliefs about
the rightness of corporate social responsibility. Bus. Soc. 46 (1), 33–62. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0007650306290312.
Muhammad, Nik Maheran Nik, Abdullah, Mazurainy, 2009. Investment decision-making
style: Are Malaysian investors rational decision makers? Interdiscipl. J. Contemp.
Res. Bus. 1 (3), 96–108.
Nyhus, Ellen K., Webley, Paul, 2001. The role of personality in household saving and
borrowing behaviour. Eur. J. Pers. 15 (1), 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.422.
Oehler, Andreas, Wendt, Stefan, Wedlich, Florian, Horn, Matthias, 2017. “Investors'
personality influences investment decisions: Experimental evidence on extraversion
and neuroticism. J. Behav. Finance. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427560.2017.
1366495.
Olsen, Robert A., Cox, Constance M., 2001. The influence of gender on the perception and
response to investment risk: The case of professional investors. J. Psychol. Financ.
Mark. 2 (1), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327760JPFM0201_3.
Pacini, Rosemary, Epstein, Seymour, 1999. The relation of rational and experiential in-
formation processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenom-
enon. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 76 (6), 972–987. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.
76.6.972.
Parker, Andrew M., Fischhoff, Baruch, 2005. Decision-making competence: External va-
lidation through an individual differences approach. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 18 (1),
1–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.481.
Paunonen, Sampo V., Ashton, Michael C., 2001. Big five factors and facets and the pre-
diction of behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81 (3), 524–539. https://doi.org/10.1037//
0022-3514.81.3.524.
Pinjisakikool, Teerapong, 2017. The influence of personality traits on households’ fi-
nancial risk tolerance and financial behaviour. J. Interdiscipl. Econ. 30 (1), 32–54.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0260107917731034.
Rahman, Saidur, H.M., 2014. Personality and decision making styles of university stu-
dents. J. Indian Acad. Appl. Psychol. 40 (1), 138–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40894-015-0003-y.
Riaz, Lubna, Hunjra, Ahmed Imran, Azam, Rauf-i, 2012a. Impact of psychological factors
on investment decision making mediating by risk perception: A conceptual study.
Middle East J. Sci. Res. 12 (6), 789–795.
Riaz, Muhammad Naveed, Riaz, Muhammad Akram, Batool, Naila, 2012b. “Personality
types as predictors of decision making styles. J. Behav. Sci. 22 (2), 100–114.
Rizvi, Saima, Fatima, Amreen, et al., 2015. Behavioral finance: A study of correlation
between personality traits with the investment patterns in the stock market. In:
Chatterjee, Sanghamitra (Ed.), Managing in Recovering Markets. Springer, New
DelhiIndia, pp. 143–155.
Robb, Cliff A., Woodyard, Ann S., 2011. Financial knowledge and best practice behaviour.
J. Financ. Couns. Plan. 22 (1), 60–70.
Roberts, Brent W., Wood, Dustin, Smith, Jennifer L., 2005. “Evaluating five factor theory
and social investment perspectives on personality trait development. J. Res. Pers. 39
(1), 166–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2004.08.002.
Rossier, Jérôme, Meyer de Stadelhofen, Franz, Berthoud, Samuel, 2004. The hierarchical
structures of the NEO PI-R and the 16PF-5. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 20 (1), 27–38.
https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.20.1.27.
Russell, Mary T., Karol, Darcie L., 2001. 16PF-5 di Raymond B. Cattell, A. Karen S. Cattell
e Heather E. P. Cattell: manuale. Adattamento Italiano Di Saulo Sirigatti e Cristina
Stefanile. O. S, Firenze.
Scott, Susanne G., Bruce, Reginald A., 1995. Decision-making style: The development and
assessment of a new measure. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 55 (5), 818–831. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0013164495055005017.
Seo, Myeong-Gu, Goldfarb, Brent, Barrett, Lisa Feldman, 2010. Affect and the framing
effect within individuals over time: Risk taking in a dynamic investment simulation.
Acad. Manag. J. 53 (2), 411–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2014.941980.
Steul, Martina, 2006. Does the framing of investment portfolios influence risk-taking
E. Gambetti and F. Giusberti
behavior? Some experimental results. J. Econ. Psychol.y 27 (4), 557–570. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2005.12.002.
Tabachnick, Barbara G., Fidell, Linda S., 2007. Using Multivariate Statistics, 4th ed. Allyn
and Bacon, Boston.
Thunholm, Peter, 2004. Decision-making style: habit, style, or both? Pers. Individ. Dif. 36
(4), 931–944. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00162-4.
van Winden, Frans, Krawczyk, Mical, Hopfensitz, Astrid, 2011. “Investment, resolution of
risk, and the role of affect. J. Econ. Psychol. 32 (6), 918–939. https://doi.org/10.
24
Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 80 (2019) 14–24
1016/j.joep.2011.07.007.
Wood, Nicole L., Highhouse, Scott, 2014. Do self-reported decision styles relate with
others’ impressions of decision quality? Pers. Individ. Dif. 70, 224–228. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.036.
Zuckerman, Marvin, Kuhlman, D.Michael, 2000. Personality and risk-taking: common
biosocial factors. J. Pers. 68 (6), 999–1029. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.
00124.