Studia i Prace WNEiZ US

Previously: Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego. Studia i Prace WNEiZ

ISSN: 2450-7733     eISSN: 2300-4096    OAI    DOI: 10.18276/sip.2016.45/2-17
CC BY-SA   Open Access   CEEOL

Issue archive / nr 45/2 2016

Authors: Maria Forlicz
Wrocław University of Economics

Tomasz Rólczyński
Wrocław School of Banking
Keywords: behavioral finance survey experiment desired value probability loss risk insurance premium
Data publikacji całości:2016
Page range:13 (211-223)
Klasyfikacja JEL: D11 D81
Cited-by (Crossref) ?:


Survey (meant as a questionnaire), next to experiment, is one of the most commonly applied in behavioral finance methods of acquiring information about people’s behavior. However, there is some disagreement between scientists what is the real informative value of results obtained from surveys. Some claim they are worthless (e.g. Neill, Cummings, Ganderton, Harrison, McGukin, 1994), others maintain that there are no significant differences between attitudes declared in questionnaires and real field behavior (e.g. Dohmen Falk, Huffman, Sunde, Schupp, Wagner, 2011). In this paper we present results of research on the relationship between students’ level of knowledge (measured by average of grades obtained during studies) and their answers given in a survey which concerned attitude towards risk. A hypothesis that subjects answering questions about insurance preferences having higher level of knowledge give answers closer to results that could be obtained from a mathematical calculation was verified.
Download file

Article file


1.Botelho, A., Costa Pinto, L. (2002). Hypothetical, Real, and Predicted Real Willingness to Pay in Open-Ended Surveys: Experimental Results. Applied Economics Letters, 9, 993–996.
2.Cieślak, A. (2003). Behawioralna ekonomia finansowa. Modyfikacja paradygmatów funkcjonujących w nowoczesnej teorii finansów. Materiały i Studia NBP, 165.
3.Dohmen, T. (2005). Individual Risk Attitudes: New Evidence from a Large, Representative, Experimentally-Validated Survey. IZA Discussion Papers, 1730.
4.Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J., Wagner, G. (2011). Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, and Behavioral Consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9 (3), 522–550.
5.Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S. (1997). Knowing with Certainty: The Appropriateness of Extreme Confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 552–564.
6.Flores-Macias, F., Lawson, Ch. (2008). Effects of Interviewer Gender on Survey Responses: Findings from a Household Survey in Mexico. International Journal of Public Opinion
7.Research, 20, 100–110.
8.Forlicz, M., Kowalczyk-Rólczyńska, P., Rólczyński, T. (2014). Wybrane czynniki kształtujące decyzje ubezpieczeniowe osób fizycznych w dobrowolnych ubezpieczeniach komunikacyjnych – badanie ankietowe. Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Bankowej we Wrocławiu, 7 (45), 105–118.
9.French, J. (1953). Experiments in field settings. W: L. Festinger, D. Katz (red.), Research Methods in Behavioral Sciences (s. 98–135). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Wilson.
10.Gonzalez, R., Wu, G. (1999). On the Shape of Probability Weighting Function. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 129–166.
11.Groves, R.M. (2004). Survey Errors and Survey Costs. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
12.Heisenberg, W. (1927). Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. Zeitschrift für Physik, 43, 172–198.
13.Hensher, D.A., Rose, J., Greene, W.H. (2005). The Implications on Willingness to Pay of Respondents Ignoring Specific Attributes. Transportation, 32, 203–222.
14.Hoffmann, A.O.I., Henry, S.F., Kalogeras, N. (2013). Aspirations as Reference Points: An Experimental Investigation of Risk Behavior Over Time. Theory and Decision, 75 (2), 193–210.
15.Jones, S.R.G. (1992). Was There a Hawthorne Effect? American Journal of Sociology, 98, 451–468.
16.Kahneman, D. Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–292.
17.Krosnick, J. (2000). The Threat of Satisficing in Surveys: The Shortcuts Respondents Take in Answering Questions. Survey Methods Newsletter, 20 (1), 4–8.
18.List, J.A., Shogren, J.F. (1998). Calibration of the Difference between Actual and Hypothetical Valuations in a Field Experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 37, 193–205.
19.Loomis, J., Brown, T., Lucero, B., Peterson, G. (1996). Improving Validity Experiments of
20.Contingent Valuation Methods: Results of Efforts to Reduce the Disparity of Hypothetical
21.and Actual WTP. Land Economics, 72, 450–461.
22.Mousseau, V. (1997). Compensatoriness of Preferences in Matching and Choice. Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences, 22 (1), 4–19.
23.Neill, H., Cummings, R., Ganderton, P., Harrison, G., McGukin, T. (1994). Hypothetical Surveys and Real Economic Commitments. Land Economics, 70, 145–154.
24.Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), 879–903.
25.Rólczyński, T., Forlicz, M., Kuźmiński, Ł. (2015). Risk Attitude in Case of Losses or Gains – an Experimental Study. The European Journal of Finance. DOI:10.1080/1351847X.2015.1062789.
26.Schoemaker, P., Kunreuther, H. (1979). An Experimental Study of Insurance Decisions. The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 46, 603–618.
27.Shogren, J.F., Fox, J.A., Hayes, D.J., Roosen, J. (1999). Observed Choices for Food Safety in Retail, Survey, and Auction Markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 81, 1192–1199.
28.Tourangeau, R., Rasinski, K.A. (1988). Cognitive Processes Underlying Context Effects in Attitude Measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 299–314.
29.Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions. The Journal of Business, 59 (4), S251–S278.
30.Zaller, J., Feldman, S. (1992). A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions versus Revealing Preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36 (3), 579–616.