Purpose – This paper aims to empirically compare the degree to which two technological interventions, based on the computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) and the technology acceptance model (TAM), were associated with a different incidence of financial biases. Design/methodology/approach – The study adopted a quasi-experimental research design. The authors randomly assigned the participants (N = 507) to one of two training conditions or a control group, and in turn, we assessed the incidence of financial biases after the training interventions. Findings – Participants who took part in the TAM-based group reported lower financial biases than those in the CSCL-based training group and the control group. Research limitations/implications – Literature suggests that two educational approaches, i.e. the CSCL and the TAM, can implement individuals’ financial decision-making. These educational approaches involve technology to support individuals in reducing the incidence of cognitive biases. This study contributes by advancing empirical evidence on technological supports for interventions to improve financial decision-making. Practical implications – Suboptimal decision-making may lead to adverse consequences both at the individual and social levels. This paper contributes to the literature on debiasing interventions by offering initial evidence on technological-based interventions in the domain of financial decision-making. The authors discuss the application of this evidence in lifelong training. Originality/value – This study provides evidence on how different technological interventions are associate with a lower incidence of financial biases.

An empirical evaluation of tech interventions to improve financial decision-making

Tommasi, Francesco;Ceschi, Andrea;Costantini, Arianna;Sartori, Riccardo
2021

Abstract

Purpose – This paper aims to empirically compare the degree to which two technological interventions, based on the computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) and the technology acceptance model (TAM), were associated with a different incidence of financial biases. Design/methodology/approach – The study adopted a quasi-experimental research design. The authors randomly assigned the participants (N = 507) to one of two training conditions or a control group, and in turn, we assessed the incidence of financial biases after the training interventions. Findings – Participants who took part in the TAM-based group reported lower financial biases than those in the CSCL-based training group and the control group. Research limitations/implications – Literature suggests that two educational approaches, i.e. the CSCL and the TAM, can implement individuals’ financial decision-making. These educational approaches involve technology to support individuals in reducing the incidence of cognitive biases. This study contributes by advancing empirical evidence on technological supports for interventions to improve financial decision-making. Practical implications – Suboptimal decision-making may lead to adverse consequences both at the individual and social levels. This paper contributes to the literature on debiasing interventions by offering initial evidence on technological-based interventions in the domain of financial decision-making. The authors discuss the application of this evidence in lifelong training. Originality/value – This study provides evidence on how different technological interventions are associate with a lower incidence of financial biases.
Financial decision-making, Financial biases, Educational tech interventions, Debiasing, Simulation training
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
10-1108_EJTD-11-2020-0169.pdf

solo utenti autorizzati

Tipologia: Versione dell'editore
Licenza: Accesso ristretto
Dimensione 209.17 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
209.17 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11562/1047659
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact