CHAPTER 1- PROSPECT THEORY AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE FRAMING EFFECT IN THE INVESTMENT DECISIONMAKING PROCESS AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH GENERATIONS X, Y AND Z: EXPLORATORY STUDY WITH
COLLEGE STUDENTS                                                                                                                                                              15                                                                                                                                                                         

Juliane Flores PEDRUSSI
Diego Luís BERTOLLO
Maria Emilia CAMARGO
Aprigio Teles Mascarenhas NETO
Walter Priesnitz FILHO
Angela Isabel dos Santos DULLIUS

  
Cite this chapter
APA

Pedrussi, J.F., Bertollo, D.L., Camargo, M.E., Neto, A.T.M., Filho, W.P., Dullius, A.I.S.(2023). Chapter 1 Prospect Theory and the Analysis of the Framing Effect in the Investment Decisionmaking Process and its Relationship with Generations X, Y and Z: Exploratory Study with College Students. In M. E. Camargo  (Ed.), Academic Research & Reviews in Social, Human and Administrative Sciences -II- (pp. 15-46). Ankara, Türkiye: Global Academy Publishing House. https://dx.doi.org/10.59740/academy.19


Showing a limited preview of this publication:
Introduction

Prospect theory describes decision-making as an often non-rational process, showing that systematic and predictable deviations from the so-called rational model of investor behavior can be observed. Originating from it, the framing effect refers to the fact that choice is influenced by the way the problem is presented. The present study aims to analyze the influence of the prospect theory and the framing effect, as well as its relationship with generations X, Y, and Z, on the attitude of college students regarding investment decision-making. The methodology for this study is descriptive, with a quantitative approach, and the use of a questionnaire applied to college students. Thus, the results obtained for the first two questions showed the framing effect only in Generation X, in which, in the first question, 69.3% of this generation chose the most likely alternative in the type I questionnaire and 54.7% chose the least likely alternative in the type II questionnaire. In the second question, 64% of Generation X chose the alternative that gave them more certainty, choosing plan A in the type I questionnaire, while in the type II questionnaire, 53.3% chose to take a risk in search of a lower loss by choosing plan B. And finally, in the third question, the effect was evident only in generation Z, in which 50% chose the option with the best-expected value, represented by alternative B in the type I questionnaire, while in the type II questionnaire, the amount of respondents diverged by covering 33.3% for each alternative.