چگونه اعتماد به نفس واسطه تاثیرگذار دانش سرمایه گذاری برای سرمایه گذاری خوداثربخشی می شود

A comprehensive investment literacy questionnaire surveyed potential sources (viz., knowledge, confidence) of investing self-efficacy in a large sample of working adults. As expected, the effect of investment knowledge on belief in one’s future capability of orchestrating a plan to achieve investment goals was mediated by confidence. Overall, employees’ applied investment knowledge accuracy was low: 57%. In general, investment knowledge was reliably related to confidence. However, confidence and investment knowledge accuracy were completely independent for 9 of 21 items, implying an inability to inhibit poor investment decisions or an inability to exploit investment opportunities. A policy of required investment training could be implemented so as to not impede individuals’ freedom of choice, which would likely help the truly uninformed to become more informed and ultimately successful investors. JEL classification D03; D12; D14 PsycINFO classification 2100; 2223; 2340; 3900; 3920

Few domains of knowledge have the potential to be so literally enriching as investing. Yet, as is the case for most topics falling under the rubric of personal finance, investing knowledge is a cognitive accomplishment for which, like language, most people receive no direct formal instruction. Unlike language, where universal acquisition is the norm, most adults fail to acquire competency in investment knowledge (e.g., Benish, 1998 and Landstrom, 1995). Previous studies have surveyed the stock market knowledge and stock holding of adults in general (e.g., Bertaut, 1998), revealed gender differences in financial literacy (e.g., Goldsmith et al., 1997 and Kirchler and Hubert, 1999), and examined how financial expertise affects investing decisions (e.g., Hershey, Walsh, Read, & Chulef, 1990). For the present study, an original investment literacy questionnaire was developed to evaluate working adults’ applied investment knowledge, as well as their self-reported level of confidence about the accuracy of this knowledge. The questionnaire also measured participants’ investing self-efficacy – belief in one’s capability in achieving one’s ultimate financial goals. 1.1. Investment literacy surveys Chen and Volpe (1998) developed a personal finance questionnaire which they sent to 1800 college students at 14 different college campuses (51% response rate). The questionnaire surveyed college students’ knowledge about personal finance (24 items) and investing (7 items). Interestingly, the questionnaire solicited participants’ personal finance opinions and decisions. One closed-ended 5-point rating scale item measured participants’ opinion about the desirability of “planning and implementing a regular investment program.” Thus, Chen and Volpe were able to determine the relationship of personal finance and investment knowledge to personal finance opinions and decisions. Overall, the mean proportion of correct responses to the personal finance questions was low (0.56); the mean proportion of correct responses to the investment questions was even lower (0.42). Furthermore, the researchers found that participants’ level of personal finance knowledge reliably influenced their investing opinions and decisions. But what about the relationship between investment knowledge and investment behavior? Van Rooij, Lusardi, and Alessie (2007) developed a financial knowledge questionnaire which measured participants basic investment numeracy (five items; e.g., “Suppose you had €100 in a savings account and the interest rate was 2% per year. After 5 years, how much do you think you would have in the account if you left the money to grow?”) as well as their general investment knowledge (11 items; e.g., “Stocks are normally riskier than bonds. True or false?”). They used the instrument to survey financial knowledge and stock market participation in a large sample of adults representative of the Dutch population. Forty percent of the respondents correctly answered all five basic investment numeracy questions, whereas merely 5% of the respondents correctly answered all 11 investment knowledge questions. Overall, respondents correctly answered 79% of basic investment numeracy items, but only 54% of the investment knowledge questions. These findings accord with other investment knowledge surveys commissioned by the financial services industry (e.g., KPMG, 1995 and Vanguard Group/Money Magazine, 1997) that have focused on issues such as indexing, mutual funds, diversification, asset allocation, and retirement shelter participation. Typically, these surveys targeted working adults and found that participants answered fewer than 60% of the items correctly. Overall, stock market participation among participants in the van Rooij et al. (2007) survey was low, which accords with reported low levels of direct stock ownership among adults in the United States and Europe (e.g., Guiso, Haliassos, & Jappelli, 2002). Van Rooij et al. also found that stock ownership was positively related to investment knowledge. Forty-four percent of participants scoring in the highest quartile of investment knowledge reported stock ownership, whereas merely 7.5% of participants scoring in the lowest quartile of investment knowledge reported owing stocks. The relationship between investment knowledge and direct stock market participation held after van Rooij et al. controlled for variables such as age, education, gender, income, and wealth. Nonetheless, even after controlling for numerous demographic characteristics, investment knowledge accounted for only 12% of the variability in stock ownership. One assumption underlying much of the investing literacy literature of which we are aware is that investing knowledge is an independent, virtually unmediated determinant of some objective investing behavior or outcome (e.g., defined contribution plan participation, stock ownership). Moreover, much of the research in this area confounds knowledge with literacy, often using both terms as equivalent synonyms. However, investment knowledge refers to participants’ score on questionnaires designed to assess investment terms and concepts. Investment literacy refers to the uses knowledge is put (viz., regularly contributing to one’s defined contribution plan, evaluating intrinsic value, buying and selling stocks). In numerous content domains (e.g., ecology, humor, logical reasoning, medicine) participants’ knowledge is influenced by confidence in their performance on a wide variety of tasks (e.g., Ginkel, 2009 and Kruger and Dunning, 1999). In these studies, confidence is directly measured. Typically, participants answer knowledge questions (e.g., Bornstein, 1999), or predict the likelihood of future events (e.g., Paese & Sniezek, 1991), then rate the probability (confidence) that their answers or predictions are accurate. Interest focuses on determining the extent to which people’s subjective judgments of accuracy exceed or fall below their observed accuracy. Within the domain of investing literacy, previous studies have measured confidence indirectly by operationalizing confidence as different outcomes across experimental conditions (e.g., Rubaltelli, Rubichi, Savadori, Tedeschi, & Ferretti, 2005), or by inferring confidence from observations of brokerage account activity (e.g., Odean, 1999). Metacognitive skill in accurately assessing the level of one’s performance distinguishes the competent from the incompetent (Kruger & Dunning, 1999). The capacity to distinguish accurate from inaccurate investment knowledge may be an essential characteristic of successful investors. Therefore, unlike previous research, the present study directly measured confidence by asking participants to self-report how confident they were that their responses to investment knowledge questionnaire items were accurate. Also unlike previous surveys of investment knowledge, the ILQ developed for the present study was designed to measure applied investment knowledge that could be used to improve an individuals’ investment returns. Some of the investment knowledge items used in previous research appear to instead have surveyed participants’ awareness of macroeconomic issues affecting mutual fund returns (e.g., “If other factors remain the same, US dollar value of a Japan fund will be …,” Chen & Volpe, 1998), their regard for the credentials of financial advisors (e.g., “If a financial planner’s business card says that he or she is a Registered Investment Advisor, the planner …,” (Volpe, Chen, & Pavlicko, 1996)), or whether participants conceive risk as stock price volatility (e.g., van Rooij et al., 2007). In the present study, items used to survey mutual fund knowledge focused on the inverse relationship between fund fees and fund returns, how turnover adversely affects returns, and the expected difference in returns from index and actively managed funds. Additional items probed participants’ knowledge about retirement shelter issues specific to non-profit organizations, from where the study’s employed adults were recruited. One of these items determined whether employees knew whether 403(b) defined contribution contracts are administered by an insurance carrier, and 403(b)(7) defined contribution contracts are administered by a mutual fund custodian. Another item determined whether employees knew why the net return would likely be meaningfully greater for contributions made to a 403(b)(7) than to a 403(b) defined contribution plan. 1.2. Investing self-efficacy Bandura (1986) argues that human behavior and motivation are affected by peoples’ self-beliefs about their capabilities. Self-efficacy refers to peoples’ beliefs about their ability to control their own behavior and influence events affecting their lives (Bandura, 1997). Indeed, Bandura (1997) argues that self-efficacy is often a better predictor of ultimate performance than measures of current performance levels. A number of domain specific self-efficacy measures have been developed for use in a wide variety of research contexts (e.g., Gecas, 1989 and McAvay et al., 1996). For example, Dietz, Carrozza, and Ritchey (2003) adapted items from the Pearlin Global Mastery Scale to measure financial efficacy, but found that this construct failed to account for gender differences in retirement saving strategies. Previous studies measuring domain specific self-efficacy have used multiple item scales to measure multifaceted constructs. The present study used a single-item to measure a unidimensional construct. Investing self-efficacy was defined as participants’ level of agreement with a single statement about their capability of achieving their long-term financial goals. Single-item measures of constructs such as self-esteem are appropriate for numerous research contexts and have acceptable psychometric properties (Robins, Hendin, & Trzensiewski, 2001). The ILQ measured two potential sources of investing self-efficacy: knowledge and confidence. The knowledge surveyed focused on applied investment issues across a broad range of investment topics (viz., stocks, stock market, mutual funds, retirement shelters, bonds, risk, investment return, valuation), using a large number (21) of items. For each investment knowledge item, participants were asked to assess how confident they were about the accuracy of their response. Self-efficacy beliefs arise from varied sources, among which is performance or mastery experience (e.g., Bandura, 1986). Positively assessed performance tends to increase self-efficacy; negatively assessed performance tends to decrease self-efficacy (Bouffard-Bouchard, 1990 and Pajares, 2003). Consequently, we expected that participants’ knowledge about investing, as well as the confidence they reported in their investment knowledge predicted their investing self-efficacy. We further expected that participants’ performance on the investment knowledge questionnaire would be mediated by their self-assessed performance accuracy.