Abstract:
Online platforms have made financial investing easier and more accessible than ever before, but little is known about how the choice architecture of these platforms— both in terms of how information is presented and how preferences are elicited— influences investment allocation decisions. Past research has shown that many people tend to “naïvely diversify” their investment funds, allocating 1/n of the total to each of n available instruments. The current work presents new experimental evidence that choice architecture can bias decisions among naively diversifying investors in three distinct ways. We first demonstrate partition-dependence, in which investor allocations vary systematically with the arbitrary grouping of investment options (by vendor and instrument). We next demonstrate unit-dependence, in which investor allocations vary systematically with the units in which the investment quantity is specified (numbers of shares purchased versus dollars invested). Finally, we demonstrate procedure-dependence, in which investment allocations vary systematically with the way in which preferences are elicited (choosing versus allocating). We observe these results among sophisticated participants, using both naturalistic investments and simple well-specified lotteries with incentive-compatible payoffs. We close with a discussion of implications for improving the design of asset allocation procedures.