Article

Interactive Impact of Demographic Emerging Economy Studies

5(1) 42–54, 2019
Variables and Personality Type © 2019 International
Management Institute
on Risk Tolerance Reprints and permissions:
in.sagepub.com/journals-permissions-india
DOI: 10.1177/2394901519825924
journals.sagepub.com/home/emi

Heena Thanki1
Narayan Baser2

Abstract
Investors’ investment decision is much dependent on his/her risk-taking capability, which in turn
depends on a variety of factors. Majority of the studies carried out on this topic associate the financial
risk tolerance (FRT) with demographics (gender, marital status, age, education income, etc.) of the
investor. A handful of the studies on this topic establish a link between FRT and personality type.
FRT refers to the investors’ ability to allow the uncertainty of returns while taking their investment
decision. Most of the past studies on the related topics have taken Myers-Briggs Type Indicators (MBTI)
or big five personality types, whereas the present study has taken Personality type A and B for finding
its association with risk tolerance level. Identifying Personality type A and B is much easier and less
time-consuming as compared to other models. Hence, in real life, financial planners also can use the
outcome of this study in preparing the investment strategy for their clients. Past studies have focused
either on demographics or on personality type, while the current study combines the effect of both
the variables and adds to the existing literature. The present study adopts a single cross-sectional
descriptive research design. To satisfy the objective, required data were gathered through a structured
questionnaire with a “Financial Risk Tolerance Scale,” “Personality Scale,” and basic demographic
questions using a convenience sampling methodology. An analysis of data indicates that personality type
and demographic variables such as gender, marital status, occupation, and income are found significant
in determining FRT of investor, while age and education are found insignificant.

Keywords
Risk tolerance, financial risk tolerance (FRT), investment behavior, demographic factor, personality type

1
Shri Jairambhai Patel Institute of Business Management (NICM), Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India.
2
School of Petroleum Management, Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India.
Corresponding author:
Heena Thanki, Shri Jairambhai Patel Institute of Business Management (NICM), Near Infocity Gate 01, Indroda Circle,
Koba–Gandhinagar Road, Infocity Gandhinagar, Gujarat 382007, India.
E-mail: heenakssbm@gmail.com
Thanki and Baser
Introduction
In general, risk tolerance can be defined as
“capacity to accept or absorb risk” while making
any decision, and it implies for every economic
and social decision, whereas the financial risk
tolerance (FRT) can be defined as “an investor’s
attitude towards risk and it can be defined as the
amount of uncertainty or investment return
volatility that an investor is willing to accept when
making a financial decision” (Faff, 2008; Grable,
2000; Grable & Lytton, 1999b; Hallahan, Faff, &
McKenzie, 2003). Individual’s financial risk-
taking capabilities play a vital role in making
his/her investment decision, and hence in recent
years, the FRT topic has gained much importance
among investment managers, financial planners/
advisors, and academicians.
A modern-day asset allocation decision/
investment model is based on four essential inputs,
namely basic goal or purpose, time horizon,
financial stability, and FRT for designing
investment strategy of any individual or corporate
(Garman & Forgue, 2011; Grable & Lytton, 1999a).
Although the first three inputs are very basic and
handy, available to investment planners/managers,
measuring someone’s FRT is highly subjective and
a complex psychological concept (Larkin, Lucey,
& Mulholland, 2013). Assessing investors’ risk-
taking capability and drafting their investment
strategy based on their risk-taking appetite are
more important functions of investment managers
and planners so that they can offer the best
investment portfolio to their clients (Faff, 2008;
Grable, 2000; Grable & Lytton, 1999b; Hallahan
et al., 2003).
Individual’s FRT can be measured through a
variety of methods: (a) by observing the actual and
real-time behavior of their investment pattern (real
investment portfolios); (b) by asking their
investment preferences and choices; (c) by asking
them the hypothetical question which is
43
psychologically designed to measure risk tolerance
level (Anbar & Eker, 2010; Faff, Mulino, & Chai,
2008; Hanna, Gutter, & Fan, 2001; Hallahan, Faff,
& McKenzie, 2004; Roszkowski, Davey, &
Grable, 2005; Wang & Hanna, 1997). “A client’s
Financial Risk Tolerance can be measured
accurately by a questionnaire, provided that the
questionnaire has been developed in accordance
with psychometric principles” (Roszkowski,
Davey, & Grable, 2005; Thanki, 2015).
Literature Review
One’s risk tolerance is subjective and may differ
from person to person depending on his/her need,
goal, age, and personal disposition. Generally, it is
assumed that investors are risk averse, but “it is
also apparent that individuals vary significantly to
the extent of financial risk that they are willing to
incur” (Corter & Chen, 2006). Individual’s
capacity to take risk is influenced by a variety of
factors such as genetic makeup, socioeconomic
profile, demographics, personality type, and
psychological construct (Cesarini, Johannesson,
Lichtenstein, Sandewall, & Wallace, 2008;
Filbeck, Hatfield, & Horvath, 2005; Grable & Joo,
2000; Mayfield, Perdue, & Wooten, 2008;
Schooley & Worden, 1996; Thanki, 2015).
Relationship Between Gender
and FRT
It is stereotyped that women are more risk averse
than men. Bajtelsmit and Bernasek (1996), Yao,
Hanna, and Lindamood (2004), Fehr-Duda, De
Gennaro, and Schubert (2006), Faff (2008), Anbar
and Eker (2010), Weber et al. (2012), Thanki
(2015), Dawson and Henly (2015), Ansari and
Phatak (2016), and Shusha (2017) confirmed
stereotype and concluded that women are more risk
averse than men. However, Embrey and Fox (1997)
44 Emerging Economy Studies 5(1)
and Grable and Lytton (1999a) were of the opinion
that gender is not a significant variable in deterring
one’s FRT.
Relationship Between Marital
Status and FRT
It is assumed that single individuals with less
family and financial responsibility can take more
risky investment decisions than the married ones.
Grable and Lytton (1999a), Hallahan et al. (2004),
Joo and Grable (2004), Yao and Hanna (2004),
Dohmen et al. (2011), and Thanki (2015) supported
this assumption and concluded that single
individuals take more risk as compared to married
ones. On the other hand, Grable (2000), Hallahan
et al. (2003), de Venter (2006), and Watson and
McNaughton (2007) found that married individuals
take more risk as compared to single investors, and
their argument to justify their conclusion was
“married individuals have greater risk-taking
propensities, because shared income and double
human capital of married individuals may
encourage them to invest in riskier assets”.
Relationship Between Age and FRT
It is assumed that as an individual grows old, his
responsibility increases, and at the very old age
(when he/she has less responsibility), he/she is
having a very limited source of income, and hence
as age increases, the risk tolerance level decreases
(negative relationship). Finke and Huston (2003),
Jianakoplos and Bernasek (2006), and Gilliam,
Chatterjee, and Zhu (2010) supported the
hypothesis and found that FRT decreased with age.
However, some studies by Wang and Hanna
(1997), Grable (2000), and Reddy and Mahapatra
(2017) differed from the hypothesis and concluded
that there exists a positive relationship between
age and FRT. Guiso and Paiella (2008), Faff,
Hallahan, and McKenzie (2009), Farrell (2014),
Thanki (2015), and Ansari and Phatak (2017) were
of the opinion that the relationship between age
and FRT is nonlinear.
Relationship Between Income
and FRT
There exist two extreme assumptions with respect
to income. The first is wealthier and prosperous
individual with ample funds, and can take more
risk as they have extra funds to offset for the loss.
Most of the investigators confirmed this hypothesis
and concluded that there exists a positive
relationship between income and FRT; as income
increases, FRT also increases (Anbar & Eker, 2010;
Ansari & Phatak, 2016; Farrell, 2014; Grable &
Lytton, 1998; Hallahan et al., 2004; Sutejo, Pranata,
& Mahadwartha, 2018; Thanki, 2015; Watson &
McNaughton, 2007; Weber et al., 2012). On the
contrary, Faff (2008) found that individuals with
lower income and wealth may be willing to take
more risk for becoming wealthier. However, very
few studies have confirmed to this postulate. Riley
and Chow (1992) and Faff (2008) established the
fact that there exists a negative relationship between
risk tolerance and income/wealth.
Relationship Between Education
and FRT
An educated investor can take the calculative risk.
Grable and Lytton (1997, 1999a), de Venter (2006),
Christiansen, Joensen, and Rangvid (2006),
Al-Ajmi (2008), Dohmen et al. (2011), Shusha
(2017), and Reddy and Mahapatra (2017) were of
the opinion that “higher education encourages
taking more financial risk.” Hallahan et al. (2003)
and Thanki (2015) found that education was not a
significant determinant of an individual’s attitude
toward risk.
Thanki and Baser
Relationship Between Occupation
and FRT
A general postulate is that entrepreneurs have
inherent risk-taking capabilities. Most of the
researchers confirmed to that postulate and
concluded that entrepreneurs take more risk as
compared to non-entrepreneur investors (Ansari &
Phatak, 2016; Grey & Gordon, 1978; Hammond,
Houston, & Melander, 1967; Meyer et al., 1961;
Thanki, 2015). However, “an investor’s risk
tolerance is not static and it can change over time.
When demographic and socioeconomic factors
related to investor change, the investor’s position
on the risk-reward spectrum will also change”
(Bertaut, 1998; Grable, Lytton, O’Neill, Joo, &
Klock, 2006; Yao, Hanna, & Lindamood, 2004).
The Relationship Between
Personality and FRT
Personality type plays a vital role in determining
investment behavior and choice of investment
avenues (Chitra & Sreedevi, 2011; Filbeck et al.,
2005; Maital, Filer, & Simon, 1986; Sadi, Asl,
Rostami, Gholipour, & Gholipour, 2011). Ample
previous studies have found the base that
personality trait of investors has an impact on their
decision-making (Carducci & Wong, 1998; Joo &
Grable, 2004; Grable, Britt, & Webb, 2008;
Mayfield et al., 2008; Moreschi, 2005). The
investor with Personality A takes higher risk as
compared to investor with Personality B
(Kannadhasan, Aramvalarthan, Mitra, & Goyal,
2016). Impact of personality traits on the
investment decision is more as compared to that of
demographic variables (Chitra & Sreedevi, 2011).
There are many models and theories available
to measure an individual’s personality such as Big
Five Model (which classifies individuals into five
basic types of personality), MBTI (Myers-Briggs
Type Indicators; which classifies individuals into
45
16 different types of personality), and type A/B
personality (which classifies individuals into two
types of personality). Type A and B personalities
are contrasting to each other. People with type A
personality are competitive, aggressive, impatient
with themselves and with others as well; they set
standards and are always under time pressure. On
the contrary, people with type B personality are of
relaxed nature; rarely they are hurried by pressure
due to time and they are hesitant to make aggressive
moves and are easygoing (Thanki, 2015).
Research Gap
Most of the past researches on related topic have
taken MBIT or big five personality types, whereas
the present study has taken Personality type A and
B for finding its association with FRT level.
Identifying Personality type A and B is much
easier and less time-consuming as compared to
other models, and hence in real life also financial
planners can use the outcome of this study in
preparing the investment strategy for their clients.
In this present research work, an attempt has been
made to find out the combined impact of
personality type and demographics of an investor
on their FRT level.
Research Methodology
The present research has conceptualized its model
from the extensive literature and theoretical
background. The proposed relationship (Figure 1)
was measured using a multiple regression model.
Cross-sectional descriptive research designed was
adapted to fulfill the objective of the present
research study. A structured questionnaire was
used to collect the required data. The data were
collected using convenience sampling method
from Ahmadabad in Gujarat. The survey was
administered to 400 investors; out of 400
questionnaires, 380 questionnaires were received;
46 Emerging Economy Studies 5(1)

out of 380 questionnaires, 51 questionnaires were

incomplete and hence discarded. The final sample Personality
size was 329. FRT is measured using “Investment type
Risk Tolerance Quiz,” developed by Grable and
Laytton (1999b). Investment risk tolerance quiz Gender
contains 13 multiple choice questions, and each
Marital status
option has been assigned a value from 1 to 4 based
Financial Risk
on the riskiness of the option. The total score on Age
the test varies from 13 to 47, a higher score Tolerance
representing high-risk tolerance. The personality Education
of investors was measured by using Dr Howard Occupation
Glazer’s test for measuring Personalities A and B
(Goldberg, 1978); the test contains 20 semantic Income
scale questions, which represents various traits of
Personality A and B. The total score on the test Figure 1. Proposed Research Model
ranges from 20 to 140. Source: The authors.

Table 1. Sample Characteristics

Variables Classification Frequency Percentage

Female 128 38.9
Gender
Male 201 61.1
Married 161 48.9
Marital status
Single 168 51.1
Above 40 years 123 37.4
Age
Below 40 years 206 62.6
Below graduation 128 38.9
Education
Graduation and above 201 61.1
Income below 500,000 251 76.3
Income
Income above 500,000 78 23.7

Non-entrepreneur 192 58.4

Occupation
Entrepreneur 137 41.6
Source: The authors.
Thanki and Baser 47

From Table 1 it can be seen that out of total 329
investors, 61.1 percent were male and 38.9 percent
were female. Out of the sample, 48.9 percent was
married people, 62.6 percent of the investors in the
sample selected belong to the age group of below 40
years and 61.1 percent of investors in the sample
has graduation and above education qualification.
In the sample, 76.3 percent of the investors has
income below 500,000, and 41.6 percent of the
investors in the sample selected were entrepreneurs.
Analysis and Discussion
Gathered data were coded and entered into SPSS
for statistical analysis. Following codes were used
to code the data.
• Risk tolerance: Scale data (actual score on
FRT Quiz); (dependent variable)
• Personality type: Scale data (actual score on
personality test; independent variable)
• Gender: Male = 1, female = 0; (independent
variable)
• Marital status: Single = 1, married = 0;
(independent variable)
• Age: Below 40 years = 1, above 40 years =
0; (independent variable)
• Education: Graduation and above = 1, below
graduation = 0; (independent variable)
• Occupation: Entrepreneur = 1, non-
entrepreneur = 0; (independent variable)
• Income: Above 500,000 = 1, below 500,000
= 0; (independent variable)
Stepwise multiple regression analysis was run in
SPSS for finding out the interactive impact of
personality type and demographic factors on FRT.
Stepwise multiple regression analysis was
conducted to examine the relationship between
personality type, various demographic variables, and
risk tolerance. Stepwise multiple regression methods
include or remove one independent variable at each
step, by default based on the probability of F statistic;
at each stage, the model gets better. Here, five models
have been developed by stepwise regression model,
and at each stage, R2 and adjusted R2 increase. The
model with the highest R2 is considered for the final
analysis. It can be seen from Table 2 that value of R
(model 5) is 0.730, which shows the positive
correlation between the independent variables
(demographics and personality type) and study
variable (FRT). Adjusted R2 in Model 5 is, 0.525,
which implies that 52.5 percent of the changes in the
FRT level is explained by the independent variables.

Table 2. Model Summary

Std Error of the

Model R R2 Adjusted R2 Estimate
1 0.582a 0.339 0.337 6.201
2 0.666b 0.444 0.440 5.697
3 0.693 c
0.480 0.475 5.518
4 0.717 d
0.515 0.509 5.338
5 0.730e 0.533 0.525 5.248
Source: The authors.
Notes: aPredictors: (constant), personality type.
b
Predictors: (constant), personality type, gender.
c
Predictors: (constant), personality type, gender, marital status.
d
Predictors: (constant), personality type, gender, marital status, occupation.
e
Predictors: (constant), personality type, gender, marital status, occupation, income.
48 Emerging Economy Studies 5(1)

The F-test of overall significance indicates
whether the linear regression model provides a better
fit to the data or not. If the p value is less than 0.05 (at
5% significance level), then the model is said to be
significant. It is clear from Table 3 that p value of
Model 5 is less than 0.05, which provides sufficient
ground for the significance of the model.
According to Tables 4 and 5, in Model 5 out of
seven independent variables, five variables,
namely personality type, gender, marital status,
occupation, and income, were found significant,
while age and education were found insignificant.
While assessing the values of constant and
unstandardized beta, the following model for the
prediction of the FRT can be developed:
FRT = 15.368 + 0.103; Personality type +
3.696; Gender + 2.884; Marital status + 2.992;
Occupation + 2.421 Income.
There exists a positive relationship between
personality type and FRT. A high score on
personality dimension represents Personality type
A so it can be concluded that investors with type A
personality are more risk-takers than those with
type B personality. The conclusion is in line with
the findings of Carducci and Wong (1998) and
Kannadhasan et al. (2016).
Male are more risk-takers than female, which
reconfirms the age-old stereotype in the Indian
context and reconfirms with the conclusion of the
findings of Bajtelsmit and Bernasek (1996), Faff

Table 3. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)a

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 6454.642 1 6454.642 167.877 0.000b
Residual 12572.713 327 38.449
Total 19027.356 328
2 Regression 8445.548 2 4222.774 130.093 0.000c
Residual 10581.807 326 32.460
Total 19027.356 328
3 Regression 9131.328 3 3043.776 99.962 0.000d
Residual 9896.027 325 30.449
Total 19027.356 328
4 Regression 9793.796 4 2448.449 85.915 0.000e
Residual 9233.560 324 28.499
Total 19027.356 328
5 Regression 10132.200 5 2026.440 73.584 0.000f
Residual 8895.155 323 27.539
Total 19027.356 328
Source: The authors.
Notes: a
Dependent variable: Risk tolerance.
b
Predictors: (constant), personality type.
c
Predictors: (constant), personality type, gender.
d
Predictors: (constant), personality type, gender, marital status.
e
Predictors: (constant), personality type, gender, marital status, occupation.
f
Predictors: (constant), personality type, gender, marital status, occupation, income.
Thanki and Baser 49

(2008), Yao and Hanna (2004), Fehr-Duda et al.
(2006), Anbar and Eker (2010), Weber et al.
(2012), Thanki (2015), Dawson and Henly (2015),
Ansari and Phatak (2016), and Shusha (2017),
while it is in contrast with the findings of Embrey
and Fox (1997) and Grable and Lytton (1999a).
Unmarried or single individual’s risk tolerance
level is high as compared to that of a married one.
The conclusion is in conformity with the previous
similar findings of Grable and Lytton (1998),
Hallahan et al. (2004), Joo and Grable (2004), Yao
and Hanna (2004), Dohmen et al. (2011), and
Thanki (2015). While it contrasts with the findings
of Grable (2000), Hallahan et al. (2003), de Venter
(2006), and Watson and McNaughton (2007).
Entrepreneur, being inherent risk-taker, takes
more financial risk than the non-entrepreneur. This
finding is similar to that of Meyer et al. (1961),
Grey and Gordon (1978), Hammond et al. (1967),
Thanki (2015), and Ansari and Phatak (2016).

Table 4. Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std Error Beta T Sig.
(Constant) 15.157 1.179 12.857 0
1.
Personality type 0.171 0.013 0.582 12.957 0
(Constant) 15.999 1.088 14.698 0
2. Personality type 0.126 0.013 0.431 9.438 0
Gender 5.456 0.697 0.357 7.832 0
(Constant) 15.599 1.058 14.749 0
Personality type 0.116 0.013 0.397 8.867 0
3.
Gender 4.912 0.684 0.322 7.177 0
Marital status 3.022 0.637 0.199 4.746 0
(Constant) 15.675 1.023 15.318 0
Personality type 0.103 0.013 0.353 7.989 0
4. Gender 3.863 0.697 0.253 5.542 0
Marital status 2.992 0.616 0.197 4.856 0
Occupation 3.194 0.662 0.21 4.821 0
(Constant) 15.368 1.01 15.221 0
Personality type 0.103 0.013 0.353 8.108 0
Gender 3.696 0.687 0.242 5.382 0
5.
Marital status 2.884 0.606 0.19 4.755 0
Occupation 2.992 0.654 0.197 4.577 0
Income 2.421 0.691 0.135 3.505 0.001
Source: The authors.
Note: Dependent variable: Risk tolerance.
a
50 Emerging Economy Studies 5(1)

Table 5. Excluded Variables

Partial Correlation Colinearity

Model Beta In T Sig. Tolerance Statistics
Age –0.020a –0.436 0.663 –0.024 0.989
Income 0.195a 4.433 0 0.238 0.992
Education –0.051 a
–1.117 0.265 –0.062 0.981
1.
Occupation 0.300a 6.667 0 0.346 0.879
Gender 0.357 a
7.832 0 0.398 0.819
Marital status 0.249a 5.613 0 0.297 0.939
Age 0.006 b
0.138 0.89 0.008 0.983
Income 0.160 b
3.931 0 0.213 0.98
2. Education –0.016b –0.383 0.702 –0.021 0.969
Occupation 0.212b 4.711 0 0.253 0.79
Marital status 0.199b 4.746 0 0.255 0.913
Age –0.004c –0.099 0.921 –0.006 0.981
Income 0.151c 3.808 0 0.207 0.978
3.
Education –0.015c –0.363 0.717 –0.02 0.969
Occupation 0.210c 4.821 0 0.259 0.79
Age 0.011 d
0.286 0.775 0.016 0.974
4. Income 0.135d 3.505 0.001 0.191 0.97
Education 0.000 d
–0.006 0.995 0 0.964
Age 0.045 e
1.14 0.255 0.063 0.921
5.
Education –.0014e –0.35 0.726 –0.02 0.954
Source: The authors.
Notes: a
Predictors in the model: (constant), personality type.
b
Predictors in the model: (constant), personality type, gender.
c
Predictors in the model: (constant), personality type, gender, marital status.
d
Predictors in the model: (constant), personality type, gender, marital status, occupation.
e
Predictors in the model: (constant), personality type, gender, marital status, occupation, income.
f
Dependent variable: risk tolerance.

There exists a positive relationship between
income of investor and FRT; as income increases,
risk tolerance level also increases. The finding
reconfirms the findings of Grable and Lytton
(1998), Hallahan et al. (2004), Watson and
McNaughton (2007), Anbar and Eker (2010),
Weber et al. (2012), Farrell (2014), Thanki (2015),
Ansari and Phatak (2017), and Sutejo et al. (2018).
Age of investor was found insignificant for the
determination of investors’ risk tolerance level.
The conclusion is in line with the findings of
Hallahan et al. (2003) and Anbar and Eker (2010),
while it is in contrast to the findings of Finke and
Huston (2003), Jianakoplos and Bernasek (2006),
and Gilliam et al. (2010).
Thanki and Baser
Education of investor was also found insignifi-
cant in the determination of FRT of Investor. The
result is in line with the previous study by Hallahan
et al. (2003) and Thanki (2015) while it is in contrast
to the findings of Grable and Lytton (1999a), Grable
and Lytton (1999), de Venter (2006), Christiansen
et al. (2006), and Al-Ajmi (2008).
However, personality type, gender, marital
status, occupation, and income are found significant
in the determination of the FRT level of investor.
But the standardized beta would give the answer
that which factor has more influence on FRT. From
Table 4, it can be seen that the most influencing
factor among all is personality type with 0.353 beta
followed by gender (0.242 beta), occupation (0.197
beta), marital status (0.190 beta), and income
(0.135 beta). Hence from the data, it can be
concluded that personality type of investor has
more influence on FRT as compared to that of
demographic variables. These findings reconfirm
the findings of Chitra and Shreedevi (2011). Gender
is the second leading influencing factor, followed
by, occupation, marital status, and income.
Conclusion
“The financial landscape has changed tremendously
over the past few decades. The outburst of the
financial service industry and a variety of innovative
investment avenues have transferred the risk of
investing on individuals” (Thanki, 2015). These
changes have sought the demand of careful
investigation of risk-taking capabilities of investor
by the financial planner and manager before
advising on any portfolio. The findings of the study
advise the financial planners and managers to
carefully investigate the investors’ demographics
such as gender, marital status, occupation, income,
and personality type before offering any portfolio
to their client. Financial planners and managers can
use the developed model to estimate the FRT of
their clients. However, an investor’s risk tolerance
is not static, and it can change over time. When
51
demographic and socioeconomic factors related to
investor change, the investor’s position on the risk–
reward spectrum will also change (Bertaut, 1998;
Grable et al., 2006; Yao et al., 2004).
Future Scope of Research
This study was limited to personality type and some
selected demographic variables based on literature
reviews such as gender, age, income, occupation,
and marital status. A future research in this area can
add up the demographic variables such as the
number of dependent and race. FRT decreases as
the number of dependent increases (Chaulk,
Johnson, & Bulcroft, 2003). There is also some
research which postulates a positive correlation
between financial literacy and FRT. Investors with
higher financial knowledge and education score
high on the FRT scale (Grable, 2000).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest
with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Al-Ajmi, J. Y. (2008). Risk tolerance of individual inves-
tors in an emerging market. International Research
Journal of Finance and Economics, 17(1), 15–26.
Anbar, A., & Eker, M. (2010). An empirical investiga-
tion for determining of the relation between personal
financial risk tolerance and demographic character-
istic. EGE Academic Review, 10(2), 503–523.
Ansari, S., & Phatak, Y. (2016). A study of assessment
of financial risk tolerance and preferred investment
avenues of investors. Prestige International Journal
of Management and Research, 9(2/1), 1–7.
52 Emerging Economy Studies 5(1)
Bajtelsmit, V. L., Bernasek, A., & Jianakoplos, N. A.
(1999). Gender differences in defined contribu-
tion pension decisions. Financial Services Review,
8(1), 1–10.
Bertaut, C. C. (1998). Stockholding behavior of US
households: Evidence from the 1983–1989 survey
of consumer finances. Review of Economics and
Statistics, 80(2), 263–275.
Carducci, B. J., & Wong, A. S. (1998). Type A and
risk taking in everyday money matters. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 12(3), 355–359.
Cesarini, D., Johannesson, M., Lichtenstein, P.,
Sandewall, Ö., & Wallace, B. (2008). Is financial
risk-taking behavior genetically transmitted? (IFN
Working Paper No. 765). Stockholm: Research
Institute of Industrial Economics.
Chaulk, B., Johnson, P. J., & Bulcroft, R. (2003). Effects
of marriage and children on financial risk tolerance:
A synthesis of family development and prospect
theory. Journal of Family and Economic Issues,
24(3), 257–279.
Chitra, K., & Sreedevi, V. R. (2011). Does personality
traits influence the choice of investment? IUP
Journal of Behavioral Finance, 8(2), 47–57.
Christiansen, C., Joensen, J. S., & Rangvid, J. (2006,
November). Gender, marriage, and the decision
to invest in stocks and bonds: Do single women
invest more in less risky assets? (D-CAF Working
Paper No. 18). Denmark: School of Economics and
Management, University of Aarhus.
Corter, J. E., & Chen, Y. J. (2006). Do investment risk
tolerance attitudes predict portfolio risk? Journal of
Business and Psychology, 20(3), 369–381.
Dawson, C., & Henley, A. (2015). Gender, risk, and
venture creation intentions. Journal of Small
Business Management, 53(2), 501–515.
de Venter, G. V. (2006, October, 11–14). Financial
planner’s perceptions of risk tolerance (pp. 1–31).
Paper presented at the 2006 Financial Management
Association’s (FMA) Annual Conference, Salt Lake
City, UT.
Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, DW., Sunde, U.,
Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2011). Individual
risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and
behavioral consequences. Journal of the European
Economic Association, 9(3), 522–550.
Embrey, L. L., & Fox, J. J. (1997). Gender differences in
the investment decision-making process. Financial
Counseling and Planning, 8(2), 33–40.
Faff, R. (2008). On the linkage between financial risk
tolerance and risk aversion. Journal of Financial
Research, 31(1), 1–23.
Faff, R., Hallahan, T., & McKenzie, M. (2009).
Nonlinear linkages between financial risk tolerance
and demographic characteristics. Applied Economics
Letters, 16(13), 1329–1332.
Faff, R., Mulino, D., & Chai, D. (2008). On the linkage
between financial risk tolerance and risk aversion.
Journal of Financial Research, 31(1), 1–23.
Farrell, J. (2014). Demographic and socioeconomic
factors of investors. In H K. Baker & V. Ricciardi
(Eds.), Investor behavior: The psychology of
financial planning and investing (pp. 117–134).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Fehr-Duda, H., De Gennaro, M., & Schubert, R. (2006).
Gender, financial risk, and probability weights.
Theory and decision, 60(2–3), 283–313.
Filbeck, G., Hatfield, P., & Horvath, P. (2005). Risk
aversion and personality type. The Journal of
Behavioral Finance, 6(4), 170–180.
Finke, M. S., & Huston, S. J. (2003). The brighter side
of financial risk: Financial risk tolerance and wealth.
Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 24(3),
233–256.
Garman, E. T., & Forgue, R. (2011). Personal finance.
USA: Cengage Learning.
Gilliam, J., Chatterjee, S., & Zhu, D. (2010).
Determinants of risk tolerance in the baby boomer
cohort. Journal of Business & Economics Research,
8(5), 79–88.
Goldberg, P. (1978). Executive health: How to recognize
health danger signals and manage stress successfully
(p. 98). USA: Mcgraw-Hill.
Grable, J. E. (1997). Investor risk tolerance: Testing
the efficacy of demographics as differentiating
and classifying factors (Doctoral dissertation).
Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech.
———. (2000). Financial risk tolerance and additional
factors that affect risk taking in everyday money
matters. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14(4),
625–630.
Thanki and Baser
Grable, J. E., & Joo, S. H. (2000). A cross-disciplinary
examination of financial risk tolerance. Consumer
Interests Annual, 46, 151–157.
Grable, J. E., & Lytton, R. H. (1997). Determinants of
retirement savings plan participation: A discriminant
analysis. Personal Finances and Worker Produc-
tivity, 1(1), 184–189.
———. (1999a). Assessing financial risk tolerance:
Do demographic, socioeconomic, and attitudinal
factors work. In American Association of Family
and Consumer Sciences (Ed.), Family relations
and human development/family economics and
resource management biennial (Vol. 3, pp. 80–88).
Columbus, OH: Family Economics and Resource
Management Division, American Association of
Family and Consumer Sciences.
———. (1999b). Financial risk tolerance revisited:
The development of a risk assessment instrument.
Financial Services Review, 8(3), 163–181.
Grable, J., Britt, S., & Webb, F. (2008). Environmental
and bio-psychosocial profiling as a means for
describing financial risk-taking behavior. Journal
of Financial Counseling and Planning, 19(2), 3–18.
Grable, J., Lytton, R. H., O’Neill, B., Joo, S. H.,
& Klock, D. (2006). Risk tolerance, projection
bias, vividness, and equity prices. The Journal of
Investing, 15(2), 68–74.
Grey, R. J., & Gordon, G. G. (1978). Risk-taking
managers: Who gets the top jobs. Management
Review, 67(11), 8–13.
Guiso, L., & Paiella, M. (2008). Risk aversion, wealth,
and background risk. Journal of the European
Economic Association, 6(6), 1109–1150.
Hallahan, T. A., Faff, R. W., & McKenzie, M. (2003).
An exploratory investigation of the relation
between risk tolerance scores and demographic
characteristics. Journal of Multinational Financial
Management, 13(4–5), 483–502.
———. (2004). An empirical investigation of personal
financial risk tolerance. Financial Services Review-
Greenwich, 13(1), 57–78.
Hammond, J. D., Houston, D. B., & Melander, E. R.
(1967). Determinants of household life insurance
premium expenditures: An empirical investigation.
Journal of Risk and Insurance, 34, 397–408.
Hanna, S. D., Gutter, M. S., & Fan, J. X. (2001). A
measure of risk tolerance based on economic theory.
53
Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning,
12(2), 53–60.
Jianakoplos, N. A., & Bernasek, A. (2006). Financial risk
taking by age and birth cohort. Southern Economic
Journal, 72(4), 981–1001.
Joo, S. H., & Grable, J. E. (2004). An exploratory
framework of the determinants of financial
satisfaction. Journal of Family and Economic
Issues, 25(1), 25–50.
Kannadhasan, M., Aramvalarthan, S., Mitra, S.
K., & Goyal, V. (2016). Relationship between
biopsychosocial factors and financial risk tolerance:
An empirical study. Vikalpa, 41(2), 117–131.
Larkin, C., Lucey, B. M., & Mulholland, M. (2013).
Risk tolerance and demographic characteristics:
Preliminary Irish evidence. Financial Services
Review, 22(1), 77–91.
Maital, S., Filer, R., & Simon, J. (1986). What do people
bring to the stock market (besides money)? The
economic psychology of stock market behavior. In
B. Gilad & S. Kaish (Eds.), Handbook of behavioral
economics (pp. 272–307). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Mayfield, C., Perdue, G., & Wooten, K. (2008).
Investment management and personality type.
Financial Services Review, 17(3), 219–236.
Meyer, H. H., Walker, W. B., & Litwin, G. H. (1961).
Motive patterns and risk preferences associated with
entrepreneurship. The Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 63(3), 570–574.
Moreschi, R. W. (2005). An analysis of the ability of
individuals to predict their own risk tolerance. Journal
of Business and Economics Research, 3(2), 39–48.
Reddy, K. S., & Mahapatra, M. S. (2017). Risk tolerance,
personal financial knowledge and demographic
characteristics evidence from India. The Journal of
Developing Areas, 51(3), 51–62.
Riley W. B., Jr., & Chow, K. V. (1992). Asset allocation
and individual risk aversion. Financial Analysts
Journal, 48(6), 32–37.
Roszkowski, M. J., Davey, G., & Grable, J. E. (2005).
Insights from psychology and psychometrics on
measuring risk tolerance. Journal of Financial
Planning, 18(4), 66–77.
Sadi, R., Asl, H. G., Rostami, M. R., Gholipour, A.,
& Gholipour, F. (2011). Behavioral finance: The
explanation of investors’ personality and perceptual
biases effects on financial decisions. International
Journal of Economics and Finance, 3(5), 234–241.
54 Emerging Economy Studies 5(1)
Schooley, D. K., & Worden, D. (1996). Risk aversion
measures: Comparing attitudes and asset allocation.
Financial Services Review, 5(2), 87–99.
Shusha, A. A. (2017). Does financial literacy moderate
the relationship among demographic characteristics
and financial risk tolerance? Evidence from Egypt.
Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance
Journal, 11(3), 67–86.
Sutejo, B. S., Pranata, Y. K. N., & Mahadwartha, P.
A. (2018). Demography factors, financial risk
tolerance, and retail investors. Advances in Social
Science, Education and Humanities Research
(ASSEHR), 186, 80–83.
Thanki, H. (2015). Risk tolerance dependent on what?
Demographics or personality type: Findings from
an empirical research. Journal of Marketing and
Consumer Research, 6, 48–56.
Wang, H., & Hanna, S. (1997). Does risk tolerance
decrease with age? Financial Counseling and
Planning, 8(2), 27–32.
Watson, J., & McNaughton, M. (2007). Gender
differences in risk aversion and expected retirement
benefits. Financial Analysts Journal, 63(4), 52–62.
Weber, M., Weber, E. U., & Nosić, A. (2012). Who
takes risks when and why: Determinants of changes
in investor risk taking. Review of Finance, 17(3),
847–883.
Yao, R., Hanna, S., & Lindamood, S. (2004). Changes
in financial risk tolerance, 1983–2001. Financial
Services Review, 13(4), 249–266.