Search

In 4 experiments, undergraduates made hypothetical investment choices. In Experiment 1, participants paid more attention to the volatility of individual assets than to the volatility of aggregated portfolios. The results of Experiment 2 show that most participants diversified even when this increased risk because of covariation between the returns of individual assets. In Experiment 3, nearly half of those who seemingly attempted to minimize risk diversified even when this increased risk. These results indicate that novice investors neglect covariation when diversifying across investment alternatives. Experiment 4 established that naive diversification follows from motivation to minimize risk and showed that covariation neglect was not significantly reduced by informing participants about how covariation affects portfolio risk but was reduced by making participants systematically calculate aggregate returns for diversified portfolios. In order to counteract naive diversification, novice investors need to be better informed about the rationale underlying recommendations to diversify.

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00421.x Byline: Matthew Mulford (a), Jonathan Jackson (a), Henrik Svedsater (b) Abstract: Pre-play discussion consistently increases cooperation in dilemma interactions. Most explanations of this 'cheap-talk' effect are based on either commitment or group solidarity effects. Because discussion about the upcoming dilemma allows participants to make promises and creates group solidarity, the 2 explanations are often confounded. This paper aims to clarify past results by having participants engage in an unrelated discussion prior to a dilemma interaction. We find that solidarity effects can be induced by minimal group categorizations, but are relatively weak. Discussions involving consequential but unrelated coordination tasks are shown to prime cooperative norms and increase cooperation with both in-group and out-group members. Our findings suggest that cheap talk may work for even cheaper reasons than previously thought. Author Affiliation: (a)London School of Economics and Political ScienceLondon, UK (b)University of GoteborgGoteborg, Sweden Article note: (2) Matthew Mulford, TRIUM Global Executive MBA, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, UK WC2A 2AE. E-mail: m.mulford@lse.ac.uk

Three experiments were conducted on 247 students of Goteborg University to study the factor of money illusion in financial decision-making. The effects of nominal variables on the students' expectations of stock price shifts and on their trading decisions were studied.

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2006.04.002 Byline: Ted Martin Hedesstrom, Henrik Svedsater, Tommy Garling Keywords: Premium pension; Heuristic choice rules; Internet-based survey Abstract: The results of previous analyses of citizens' actual choices of mutual funds in the Swedish compulsory public pension system were replicated in an Internet-based survey of fictitious choices among fund categories. The sample consisted of 392 university employees. Findings indicated a possible default bias, the use of a diversification heuristic, a home bias, and the use of a 1/n heuristic. Involvement in the fund choice, measured by self-rating scales, increased with the amount to invest but decreased with age. Involvement decreased the likelihood of choosing the default fund and was positively correlated with the number of funds included in a portfolio. Home bias and the use of a 1/n heuristic was however unaffected by involvement and by having previous stock market investment experience. Efforts to better inform investors about how to diversify are warranted. Author Affiliation: Goteborg University, Gothenburg, Sweden Article History: Received 8 July 2005; Revised 6 April 2006; Accepted 27 April 2006

To assess whether the content of the Asthma Control Test (ACT) served as a valid measure of asthma control (i.e., content validity) by mapping ACT items to the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) guideline asthma control definitions, and to language used by patients to describe their asthma. PubMed and EMBASE databases were used for a structured literature analysis. Full-text, English-language articles that reported findings from qualitative studies conducted in adults, focusing on patient descriptors of asthma symptoms, impacts, or severity, were included. Pediatric studies, studies conducted in patients without asthma, and studies that did not contain qualitative data were excluded. ACT items reflected all domains of asthma impairment described in the NHLBI guidelines, except pulmonary function. Following the literature review, 28 full-text publications were identified that included patient descriptors that could be mapped to ACT items. For example, per ACT Item 1, patients described having trouble at work, school, and completing household chores; and, per ACT Item 2, patients used the phrase "short of breath" to describe asthma-associated symptoms. ACT item content corresponded well with the NHLBI guideline definitions of the impairment domain of asthma control (focused on asthma symptoms and impact), and we identified numerous examples in the literature indicating that ACT concepts and item content mirror the language patients use when discussing asthma symptoms and impact, and their degree of asthma control. This provides further evidence to support content validity of the ACT as a measure of asthma control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research shows that surveyed citizens do not always adequately understand an economic valuation of a given public good, such as an environmental amenity, but may attach their own meaning to monetary estimates.

Objective: The Asthma Salford Lung Study demonstrated the effectiveness of initiating once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) versus continuing usual care in asthma patients in UK primary care [1]. Here, we report a secondary analysis in a subset of patients with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/Salm) as their baseline intended maintenance therapy, to evaluate the relative effectiveness of initiating FF/VI versus continuing FP/Salm. Methods: Adults with symptomatic asthma were randomised to initiate FF/VI 100[200]/25 µg or continue FP/Salm. The Asthma Control Test (ACT), Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Asthma questionnaire, severe exacerbations, salbutamol inhaler prescriptions and serious adverse events (SAEs) were recorded throughout the 12-month treatment period. Results: One thousand two hundred and sixty-four patients (FF/VI 646; FP/Salm 618) were included in this subset analysis; 978 had baseline ACT score <20 and were included in the primary effectiveness analysis (PEA) population. At week 24, odds of patients being ACT responders (total score ≥20 and/or improvement from baseline ≥3) were significantly higher with FF/VI versus FP/Salm (71% vs. 56%; odds ratio 2.03 [95% CI: 1.53, 2.68]; p < 0.001 [PEA]). Significant benefit with FF/VI versus FP/Salm was also observed for AQLQ responders, activity impairment due to asthma, exacerbation rates, and salbutamol inhalers prescribed. No significant between-group differences were observed for impairment while working or work absenteeism due to asthma. Conclusions: For patients in primary care, initiating FF/VI was significantly better than continuing with FP/Salm for improving asthma control and quality of life, and reducing asthma exacerbations, with no notable difference in SAEs. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01706198. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People with asthma who do not adhere to their maintenance medication may experience poorer asthma control and need more healthcare support than those who adhere. People (N = 1010) aged 18-55 years with self-reported asthma, taking one or more asthma maintenance medication(s), from five European countries, participated in a survey using validated scales (Medication Adherence Report Scale [MARS], Asthma Control Test™ [ACT], Beliefs about Medicine Questionnaire [BMQ] and the Asthma Treatment Intrusiveness Questionnaire [ATIQ]). We performed a post hoc evaluation of adherence to maintenance medication, asthma control, beliefs about medication, preferences for once-daily vs. twice-daily asthma maintenance medication and treatment intrusiveness, using structural equation modelling to investigate the relationships between these factors. Most participants reported potential problems with asthma control (ACT < 19: 76.8% [n = 776]), low adherence (median MARS = 3.40) and preferred once-daily medication (73.5% [n = 742/1010]). Non-adherence was associated with worse asthma control (r = 0.262 [P < 0.001]) and a expressed preference for once-daily medication over a "twice daily medication that works slightly better" (test statistic [T] = 2.970 [P = 0.003]). Participants reporting non-adherence/preferring once-daily medication had negative beliefs about their treatment (BMQ necessity-concerns differential: r = 0.437 [P < 0.001]/T = 6.886 [P < 0.001]) and found medication intrusive (ATIQ: r = -0.422 [P < 0.001]/T = 2.689[P = 0.007]). Structural equation modelling showed complex relationships between variables, including: (1) high concerns about treatment associated with increased perceived treatment intrusiveness and reduced adherence, which influenced asthma control; (2) high concerns about treatment and healthcare seeking behaviour, which were predictive of preferring twicedaily asthma medication. Concerns about medication and perceived treatment intrusiveness were predictive of poor adherence, and were associated with preference for once-daily asthma medication. Confirm the utility of the PAPA model and NCF in explaining nonadherence linked to poor asthma control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]