一切都有自己的时间:规划视野因金融领域而异

IF 1.4 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
Wändi Bruine de Bruin, Alycia Chin, David Zimmerman, Wilbert van der Klaauw
{"title":"一切都有自己的时间:规划视野因金融领域而异","authors":"Wändi Bruine de Bruin,&nbsp;Alycia Chin,&nbsp;David Zimmerman,&nbsp;Wilbert van der Klaauw","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Financial planning horizons reflect the time periods people use for their financial decisions. They are measured to understand and inform financial decisions and to predict financial outcomes like using a financial advisor, having a retirement account, or having lower inflation expectations. Financial surveys typically ask participants to report one planning horizon for “saving and spending,” seemingly assuming that people use one planning horizon for saving and for spending and that this one planning horizon also applies to other financial domains such as investing and retirement finances. The underlying reasoning may be that money is fungible, with one extra dollar of spending removing one dollar from the money available for saving, investing, or retirement finances. Here, we report on three US-wide studies in which people indicated using different planning horizons across financial domains, which were differentially associated with financial outcomes. Median planning horizons were significantly shorter for saving and spending than for retirement finances (Study 1); for spending than for saving (Study 2); and, in order, for spending, saving, investing, and retirement finances (Study 3). Short-term (vs. long-term) planning horizons were often more valid predictors of financial outcomes (Studies 1–3), suggesting that short-term planning horizons may take precedence in financial decisions. A combination of short-term and long-term planning horizons may even have independent associations with financial outcomes (Study 3). We conclude that planning horizon questions should ask about specific financial domains and that multiple planning horizons may be relevant to specific financial outcomes.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"38 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Everything in Its Own Time: Planning Horizons Vary Across Financial Domains\",\"authors\":\"Wändi Bruine de Bruin,&nbsp;Alycia Chin,&nbsp;David Zimmerman,&nbsp;Wilbert van der Klaauw\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/bdm.70035\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>Financial planning horizons reflect the time periods people use for their financial decisions. They are measured to understand and inform financial decisions and to predict financial outcomes like using a financial advisor, having a retirement account, or having lower inflation expectations. Financial surveys typically ask participants to report one planning horizon for “saving and spending,” seemingly assuming that people use one planning horizon for saving and for spending and that this one planning horizon also applies to other financial domains such as investing and retirement finances. The underlying reasoning may be that money is fungible, with one extra dollar of spending removing one dollar from the money available for saving, investing, or retirement finances. Here, we report on three US-wide studies in which people indicated using different planning horizons across financial domains, which were differentially associated with financial outcomes. Median planning horizons were significantly shorter for saving and spending than for retirement finances (Study 1); for spending than for saving (Study 2); and, in order, for spending, saving, investing, and retirement finances (Study 3). Short-term (vs. long-term) planning horizons were often more valid predictors of financial outcomes (Studies 1–3), suggesting that short-term planning horizons may take precedence in financial decisions. A combination of short-term and long-term planning horizons may even have independent associations with financial outcomes (Study 3). We conclude that planning horizon questions should ask about specific financial domains and that multiple planning horizons may be relevant to specific financial outcomes.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48112,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making\",\"volume\":\"38 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.70035\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.70035","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

财务规划周期反映了人们用于财务决策的时间段。衡量这些指标是为了理解并为财务决策提供信息,并预测财务结果,比如聘请财务顾问、拥有退休账户或降低通胀预期。财务调查通常要求参与者报告“储蓄和支出”的规划范围,似乎假设人们使用一个规划范围来储蓄和支出,并且这个规划范围也适用于其他金融领域,如投资和退休财务。潜在的理由可能是钱是可替代的,每多花一美元,就会从可用于储蓄、投资或退休的资金中减少一美元。在这里,我们报告了三个美国范围的研究,在这些研究中,人们表示在不同的金融领域使用不同的规划视野,这与财务结果有不同的关联。储蓄和支出的中位数计划期限明显短于退休财务(研究1);消费多于储蓄(研究2);依次是消费、储蓄、投资和退休财务(研究3)。短期(相对于长期)规划视野往往更有效地预测财务结果(研究1-3),这表明短期规划视野可能优先考虑财务决策。短期和长期规划视野的结合甚至可能与财务结果有独立的联系(研究3)。我们的结论是,规划视界问题应该询问具体的财务领域,而多个规划视界可能与具体的财务结果相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Everything in Its Own Time: Planning Horizons Vary Across Financial Domains

Financial planning horizons reflect the time periods people use for their financial decisions. They are measured to understand and inform financial decisions and to predict financial outcomes like using a financial advisor, having a retirement account, or having lower inflation expectations. Financial surveys typically ask participants to report one planning horizon for “saving and spending,” seemingly assuming that people use one planning horizon for saving and for spending and that this one planning horizon also applies to other financial domains such as investing and retirement finances. The underlying reasoning may be that money is fungible, with one extra dollar of spending removing one dollar from the money available for saving, investing, or retirement finances. Here, we report on three US-wide studies in which people indicated using different planning horizons across financial domains, which were differentially associated with financial outcomes. Median planning horizons were significantly shorter for saving and spending than for retirement finances (Study 1); for spending than for saving (Study 2); and, in order, for spending, saving, investing, and retirement finances (Study 3). Short-term (vs. long-term) planning horizons were often more valid predictors of financial outcomes (Studies 1–3), suggesting that short-term planning horizons may take precedence in financial decisions. A combination of short-term and long-term planning horizons may even have independent associations with financial outcomes (Study 3). We conclude that planning horizon questions should ask about specific financial domains and that multiple planning horizons may be relevant to specific financial outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral Decision Making is a multidisciplinary journal with a broad base of content and style. It publishes original empirical reports, critical review papers, theoretical analyses and methodological contributions. The Journal also features book, software and decision aiding technique reviews, abstracts of important articles published elsewhere and teaching suggestions. The objective of the Journal is to present and stimulate behavioral research on decision making and to provide a forum for the evaluation of complementary, contrasting and conflicting perspectives. These perspectives include psychology, management science, sociology, political science and economics. Studies of behavioral decision making in naturalistic and applied settings are encouraged.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信