금융 의사결정에 있어서 위험은 기대수익과 함께 상품 선택에 있어서 핵심적인 결정요인으로 받아들여지고 있는데, 평균-분산기준에 의한 투자 방법에 따르면 동일 기대수익인 경우 위험이 낮은 금융투자상품을 선택하도록 하고있다. 이것은 금융투자상품 선택 시 위험은 기대수익과는 상충관계(trade-off)를 이루고 있고 선호도와는 부정적상관관계를 가지고 있는 것으로 여겨져 왔기 때문이다.
그러나 위험 지각 차원 연구에 따르면 금융에서의 위험은 하방향의 부정적 성격뿐 아니라 상방향의 긍정적 성격을함께 가지고 있음이 밝혀졌다. 금융에서의 지각된 위험이 부정적 성격과 긍정적 성격을 함께 가지고 있고 금융투자상품 선택의 목적이 이익극대화 및 손실최소화에 있음을 고려해 본다면, 자기조절 지향성은 금융투자상품 위험 정보의이해(해석) 및 선택에 차별적으로 영향을 미칠 가능성이 높다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 상황적 점화 방식을 활용하여향상초점과 예방초점으로 구분된 조절초점이 금융투자상품의 선택에 어떻게 영향을 미치는지를 살펴보았다. 실험에서금융투자상품과 관련하여 금융소비자들에게 차별적으로 노출된 정보는 기대수익 혹은 위험에 관한 정보였다.
실험을 통해 발견된 주요 사항은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 기대수익-위험 정보 구성에 따른 금융투자상품 선택 시 규범적 투자이론의 원리와 동일하게 금융투자상품을 선택하는 경우가 더 많았으나 ‘기대수익 상이-위험 동일’ 조건과 대비하여 볼 때 ‘기대수익 동일-위험 상이’ 조건에서는 상이한 선택을 하는 경우도 유의하게 발생하였으며, 조절초점은상이한 선택에 영향을 미치고 있음을 발견하였다. 둘째, ‘기대수익 상이-위험 동일’ 조건과 대비하여 보았을 때 1)위험 정보가 이익 영역으로 구성된 ‘기대수익 동일-위험 상이’ 조건에서는 위험이 높은 상품을 선택하는 경우가 유의하게 발생하였고, 2) 위험 정보가 이익-손실 혼합 영역으로 구성된 ‘기대수익 동일-위험 상이’ 조건에서도 위험이높은 상품을 선택하는 경우가 유의하게 발생하였으며, 조절초점 간에도 차이가 발생(향상초점이 예방초점에 비해위험이 높은 상품을 더 많이 선택)하였다. 셋째, ‘기대수익 동일-위험 상이’ 조건에서 위험 정보의 구성이 이익 영역으로 만 구성된 경우와 비교하여 위험 정보의 구성이 이익-손실 혼합 영역으로 구성된 경우 위험이 높은 상품을 선택하는 비율이 통계적으로 유의하게 감소하였다.
실험 결과가 이론적으로 기여하는 바는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 프로스펙트 이론과는 달리 이익(혹은 이익이 기대되는) 영역에서는 자기조절 지향성에 따라서 정도의 차이는 있으나 위험추구 현상이 나타나고, 이러한 위험 추구 현상은 위험정보가 이익과 손실(혹은 이익과 손실이 기대되는) 혼합 제시 영역에서는 감소되는 경향이 나타났다는 점이다. 둘째, 규범적 투자이론인 평균-분산기준에 의한 투자의사결정 이론과는 달리 동일한 기대수익이라고 하더라도위험이 더 높은 상품을 선택하는 현상이 나타났고, 이러한 선택에 조절초점이 영향을 미치고 있음을 보여주고 있다.
셋째, 조절초점은 금융투자상품 선택에 중요한 선행요인임이 밝혀졌다. 조절초점은 위험 정보가 이익 영역으로만 구성되어 있는 경우 그리고 이익-손실 혼합 영역인 경우 금융투자상품 선택에 영향을 미친다. 본 연구 결과의 실무적기여 사항을 시장세분화, 정책 입안자들의 정책 수립, 소비자 교육 정책 등의 관점에서 살펴보았고, 추가적인 연구주제들에 대하여 제언하였다.
Consumer judgment and decision making in the financial markets are important but underresearched topics in marketing. When evaluating or choosing financial products, expected rate of return and risk are important judgment and choice criteria in financial consumers' decision making. In finance (investment) literatures, it is generally assumed that there is a trade-off relationship between the expected rate of return and risk. In addition, risk and preference are also assumed to have a negative relationship. In the world of mean-variance criterion, it is generally suggested that consumers choose the financial product with a lower level of risk if the alternatives have the same expected rate of return.
Traditionally, the word ‘risk’ has negative connotations such as peril, hazard or injury. Therefore,some researchers have proposed that, because of the negative implications of the word, the risk of financial products is considered as a below target return or the chances of achieving a return below the mean, even though the risk of financial products is generally measured as a deviation from the mean and reflects the chances of a return both above and below the mean.
According to previous studies on perception of financial risk, however, risk not only has a negative downside potential, but also a positive upside potential. Considering that risk perception of a financial investment has both negative and positive features and that the objectives of financial investments are maximization of profits and minimization of losses,whether financial consumers have a promotion-focused orientation (vs. a prevention-focused orientation) is likely to have an influence on their perception and evaluation of return-risk information and distinctively impact their choices of financial investment products. Promotionfocused consumers orient themselves toward ideal goals, focus on the presence of positive outcomes, aim at their maximal goal, and think probabilities disjunctive. Prevention-focused consumers orient themselves toward ought goals, focus on the absence of negative outcomes,aim at their minimal goal, and think probabilities conjunctive. Therefore, promotion-focused consumers focus on the positive features of risk, i.e., upside potential, but prevention-focused consumers focus on the negative features of risk, i.e., downside potential.
This study investigates how regulatory focus influences consumer choice of financial investment products. Building on regulatory focus theory and decision making under risk, this study examines how consumers evaluate investment products when exposed to the information regarding the products' expected rate of returns and risk. In our experiments, we manipulated regulatory focus with situational priming and participants were exposed to different sets of risk-return information. We treated risk as a dispersion of expected return and presented risk as a range, i.e., upper limit and lower limit.
The major findings are as follows:First, in contrast to the principle proposed by the mean-variance criterion, although more than half of the participants chose financial investment products compatible with normative investment theory, a substantial number of participants (approximately 40%) in our experiment chose a riskier alternative when presented with equivalent-expected-return alternatives, while very few participants (approximately 6%) chose a lower expected return alternative when presented with equivalent risk alternatives. In addition, the riskier alternative was more frequently chosen by the promotion-focused participants than the prevention-focused participants.
Second, compared with the condition of ‘unequivalent expected returns and equivalent risk’,i) a substantial number of participants chose the riskier alternative in the ‘equivalent-expectedreturn alternatives’ condition when both expected return and risk were presented in the gain domain, and ii) substantial-but-lesser number of participants chose the riskier alternative in the ‘equivalent- expected-return alternatives’ condition when the return and risk were presented in the gain domain but the lower limit of the riskier alternative fell in the loss domain, i.e.,gain-loss mixed configuration of risk. And in these cases, the riskier alternative was also more frequently chosen by the promotion-focused participants than the prevention-focused participants.
Third, in the ‘equivalent expected return and unequivalent risk alternatives’ condition,participants were less likely to choose the riskier alternative when the return and risk of the less risky alternative were presented in the gain domain but the lower limit of the riskier alternative fell in the loss domain than when both the return and risk information fell in the gain domain.
We explore theoretical implications of our findings in the framework of prospect theory and theories of finance (investment). Theoretical contributions of the current study are as follows:First, increased risk-seeking behavior was observed when return-risk information was configured in the gain (or expected gain) domain but was reduced when the return-risk information was configured in the gain-loss domain. Regulatory focus also influenced this phenomenon. The risk-seeking behavior in our experimental participants was somewhat different from the results expected according to prospect theory.
Second, even in the equivalent expected return condition, a substantial number of participants chose the riskier alternative contrary to the expectations based on normative investment theory (mean-variance criterion). Regulatory focus also influenced this phenomenon.
Third, we demonstrate that regulatory focus is an important precedent in determining the evaluation and choice of financial products, which in our experiment depended on return-risk information configuration.
We also describe the practical implications of the study with regard to market segmentation,financial policy, and financial education. As further research, we suggest an international comparisons of financial consumers' risk-return perception, evaluation and choice based on risk-return information.
