Risk Attitudes and Personality Traits Among Investors in Funds
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How do an investor’s thoughts and feelings influence their behavior? Financial institutions must assess the risk attitudes of investors to ensure investors are being recommended appropriate financial products. This study is a further examination into whether risk attitudes are correlated with personality traits and to determine the risk attitudes of investors from different backgrounds. The risk attitudes of investors were examined according to the Big Five personality traits. Investor personality traits were linked to their investment decisions and risk attitudes. Differences in risk attitudes between investors from different backgrounds were also explored. A questionnaire survey was administered. Investors with fund investment experience were recruited. Correlations were observed between the Big Five personality traits and risk attitudes. Extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to new experiences were positively correlated with risk attitudes, and neuroticism was inversely correlated with risk attitudes. These results indicated direct relationships between the Big Five personality traits and risk attitudes. This study also revealed significant differences in risk preferences between gender, marital status, discretionary budget, fund investment experience, and risk profile. The study results provide a broader reference for establishing investment risk profile charts that integrate personality traits into behavioral finance models in financial practices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it