MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410012227 · doi:10.1016/j.jbef.2025.101049

Gamified risk-taking

2025· article· en· W4410012227 on OpenAlexafffund
Philipp Chapkovski, Mariana Khapko, Marius Zoican

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryThe Scarborough Hospital
FundersCanadian Securities Institute Research Foundation
KeywordsEconomicsBusinessRisk analysis (engineering)Psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We conduct a randomized online experiment to examine how digital nudges to hold volatile assets, a form of trading gamification, influence retail investors’ risk-taking behavior. A sample of 605 participants from four countries traded a virtual asset on an experimental platform. The gamified platform incorporates digital nudges, such as achievement badges and motivational prompts, explicitly designed to encourage holding decisions. We find that nudges significantly amplify risk-taking, particularly in high-volatility environments. The effect is most pronounced among inexperienced traders with lower financial literacy, with a one standard deviation increase in financial literacy reducing the impact by 56%.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Behavioral and Experimental FinanceSame topicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement AnalysisFrench-language works237,207