PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to study the relationship between financial risk-taking and trait emotional intelligence (EI).Design/methodology/approachAn incentivized online survey was conducted to collect the data, including measurements for cognitive ability and socio-demographic characteristics.FindingsThere is a positive correlation between trait EI and financial risk-taking that is at least as large as that between risk-taking and measures of cognitive control (CRT). Trait EI is a key determinant of risk-taking. However, not all components of trait EI play an identical role. In fact, we observe positive effects of well-being, mainly driven by males and sociability. Self-control seems to matter only for males.Research implications/limitationsThis study suffers from the bias of self-reported answers, a common limitation of all survey studies.Practical implicationsThis evidence provides a noncognitive explanation for the typically observed heterogeneity of financial risk-taking, in addition to more established explanations linked to cognitive skills. Investor profiles should be also determined on their trait EI.Social implicationsGovernments should start programs meant to improve the level of trait EI to ameliorate individual wealth outcomes. Female investors participation in the financial markets might increase by fostering their sociability.Originality/valueThe relationship between trait EI and each of its components with financial risk-taking is vastly unexplored, while it is the first time that gender effects are discussed in that set up.

Despite growing evidence showing that people are denied access to market resources for reasons other than individual or market constraints, little research has explored the effect of such denial on the individual consumer. Building from learned helplessness, attribution theory of motivation, and consumer power theory, the current research addresses this issue by showing the impact of repeated access denial on perceptions of power and market engagement. Across five repeated-choice experiments utilizing a financial loan context, the authors show that market access and consumer power exist in a feedback loop, with lack of access leading to lower perceptions of power and, consequently, reduced market engagement or detrimental choice in the market. The authors present a norm-based intervention to encourage market engagement among those who have experienced denial by working through beliefs of market success, but demonstrate the detrimental effect of this intervention on those who have experienced repeated access prior to denial. In response, the authors present an education intervention to encourage smarter choices once consumers have entered the market. They conclude with implications for market access policy.

No abstract

Some people feel they are invincible to the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). They believe that being infected with COVID-19 would not be a serious threat to their health. While these people may or may not be correct in their personal risk assessment, we find that such perceived invincibility may undermine community efforts to achieve herd immunity. Multi-level analysis of survey respondents across 51 countries finds that perceived invincibility from COVID-19 is negatively associated with believing there is a need to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in one’s community (n = 218,956) and one’s willingness to inoculate against the disease (n = 71,148). These effects are most pronounced among individuals from countries lower in cultural collectivism (e.g., USA, UK, Canada) and highlight the need to consider the interplay of individual and cultural factors in our efforts to understand, predict, and promote preventative health behavior during a pandemic.

Theory of Mind (ToM) ─ the ability to understand other’s thoughts, intentions, and emotions ─ is important for navigating interpersonal relationships, avoiding conflict, and empathizing. Prior research has identified many factors that affect one’s ToM ability, but little work has examined how different kinds of monetary incentives affect ToM ability. We ask: Does money affect ToM ability? If so, how does the effect depend on the structure of monetary incentives? How do the differences depend on gender? We hypothesize that money will affect ToM ability differently by gender: monetary rewards increase males’ motivation to express ToM ability while simultaneously crowding out females’ motivation. This prediction is confirmed in an experiment that varies the structure of monetary rewards for correct answers in the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET). RMET scores decrease for females and increase for males with individual payments, and this effect is stronger with competitively-structured payments. RMET scores do not significantly change when monetary earnings go to a charity. Whether money improves or hinders ToM ability, and, hence, success in social interactions, thus depends on the interaction of gender and monetary incentive structure.