| Popis: |
PLEASE NOTE: The present study will be an addition (Study 2) to another preregistered study (https://osf.io/pe4g2, in following referred to as Study 1). First results Study 1 indicate an effect of effectiveness framings. Yet, the intended sample size of N = 1200 investors could not be recruited. Thus, the present study will serve as complementary study with lay people to further validate the effects of the preregistered study. Compared to the prior pre-registration (Study 1) we made the following changes: - Based on a Power Analysis of the preliminary results of Study 1, we increased the sample size of Study 2 to N = 1400. - Only 5 participants will be selected in the lottery - Trust in the information, the preference query and in sustainable investments are not included as moderators/controls, since these variables turn out to be affected by the treatments - The analysis will be conducted with the full sample. The question on having assets will not serve as exclusion criterium but will be included as control variable, together with experience in investing. Despite the fact we focus on lay people, also in the average population, people with investment experience exist and thus this cannot serve as exclusion criterium. - We simplified the control question and adapted it to suit the new sample. We add the control variable whether the control question was answered correctly. - The variable of people under 18 years living in the household was supplemented by the “none” option, which was missing in the beginning of the previous data collection (and corrected during the data collection process). - We added a question to the survey asking participants whether they responded to the best of their knowledge and with all conscience. - In the subgroup analysis, we add financial literacy for the interaction with the framings. Apart from these changes, the pre-registration will of Study 2 be identical to the first pre-registered study with investors (Study 1; https://osf.io/pe4g2). For the sake of completeness, we provide a full registration also for this study on lay people, which makes up the rest of this document. Previous studies (Døskeland & Pedersen, 2016, 2021) have shown that both, financial and moral framings increase green investments. Moreover, the European Commission recently published the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2616 (2021) with the aim to integrate client’s sustainability preferences in the financial advice process. This raises the question how different modes of explanation (financial and effectiveness framings) and the mode of eliciting sustainability preferences (simple vs. granular questions) influence customer satisfaction with the information on sustainable investments and the mode of preference query, investment decisions, stability of investment decisions and deviation from financial advice. The aim of this research is to increase our understanding on how the assessment of sustainability preferences and the framing thereof during the financial advice process can increase sustainable investments (GI), consumer satisfaction (CS), stability of investment (SOI) and deviation from the recommendation for sustainable products (DFR). We examine three aspects: 1) The framing of how sustainable investments are explained to potential investors (no versus financial versus effectiveness framing versus the combination of both framings), 2) granularity of sustainability preferences assessment (general versus detailed preferences questions) and 3) heterogeneity effects related to wealth, biospheric and altruistic values, trust, financial literacy, gender, age, education and risk preferences. |
