Even though there has been increasing interest in the role of cognition in leadership and in identifying the personality traits of effective leaders, there is a paucity of studies that investigate the unique influence of managers’ trait affectivity and cognitive ability on their different risk and time preferences. This paper investigates the role of managers’ trait affectivity and cognitive ability in their loss aversion and present bias among 623 top managers at textile and garment firms in Vietnam. We combine data on preferences elicited through a lab-in-the-field experiment with survey data. We find that managers with high positive affectivity (PA) or cognitive ability are less subject to loss aversion and present bias. In contrast, a manager with high negative affectivity (NA) is more likely to be impatient and loss averse. Furthermore, heterogeneity of trait affectivity and cognitive ability determines different loss aversion and present bias levels of managers in SMEs vis-à-vis their counterparts in large firms. Remarkably, we observe striking evidence that trait affectivity and cognitive ability significantly affect loss aversion and present bias levels of managers who were born during the Vietnam War. Still, it is not the story of their counterparts born after the Vietnam War. The results of our study are expected to provide valuable information regarding the role played by trait affectivity and cognitive ability in determining managers’ loss aversion and present bias in different pathways.
AckertL. F.DeavesR.MieleJ.NguyenQ. (2020). Are time preference and risk preference associated with cognitive intelligence and emotional intelligence?Journal of Behavioral Finance, 21(2), 136–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427560.2019.1663850
2.
AhlbrechtM.WeberM. (1997). An empirical study on intertemporal decision making under risk. Management Science, 43(6), 813–826. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2634624
3.
AkesakaM. (2019). Change in time preferences: Evidence from the great east Japan earthquake. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 166(October 2019), 239–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2019.08.013
4.
AlempakiD.StarmerC.TufanoF. (2019). On the priming of risk preferences: The role of fear and general affect. Journal of Economic Psychology, 75(Part A), 102137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2018.12.011
5.
AlesinaA.Fuchs-SchündelnN. (2007). Goodbye Lenin (or not?): The effect of communism on people’s preferences. American Economic Review, 97(4), 1507–1528. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.97.4.1507
6.
AnagolS.ColeS.SarkarS. (2017). Understanding the advice of commissions-motivated agents: Evidence from the Indian life insurance market. Review of Economics and Statistics, 99(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00625
7.
AndersonK.ZamarroG.SteeleJ.MillerT. (2021). Comparing performance of methods to deal with differential attrition in randomized experimental evaluations. Evaluation Review, 45(1–2), 70–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X211034
BoschiniA.DreberA.von EssenE.MurenA.RanehillE. (2019). Gender, risk preferences and willingness to compete in a random sample of the Swedish population. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 83(December 2019), 101467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2019.101467
10.
Branas-GarzaP.KujalP.LenkeiB. (2019). Cognitive reflection test: Whom, how, when. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 82(October 2019), 101455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2019.101455
CallenM.IsaqzadehM.LongJ. D.SprengerC. (2014). Violence and risk preference: Experimental evidence from Afghanistan. American Economic Review, 104(1), 123–148. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.1.123
14.
ChenCHeYWangKYanS (2022). The Impact of early-life Natural Disaster Experiences on the Corporate Innovation by CEOs. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 58(14), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496X.2022.2073817
15.
CheungF. Y. L.TangC. S. K. (2009). The influence of emotional intelligence and affectivity on emotional labor strategies at work. Journal of Individual Differences, 30(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001.30.2.75
da SilvaF. P.JerónimoH. M.VieiraP. R. (2019). Leadership competencies revisited: A causal configuration analysis of success in the requirements phase of information systems projects. Journal of Business Research, 101(August 2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.025
DohmenT.FalkA.HuffmanD.SundeU. (2018). On the relationship between cognitive ability and risk preference. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32(2), 115–134. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.32.2.115
EberlyM. B.FongC. T. (2013). Leading via the heart and mind: The roles of leader and follower emotions, attributions and interdependence. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(5), 696–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.05.003
22.
FosterJ. (2020). Loss aversion and sunk cost sensitivity in all-pay auctions for charity: Theory and experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 84(February 2020), 101486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2019.101486
GolsteynBartSchildberg-HörischHannah (2017). Challenges in research on preferences and personality traits: Measurement, stability, and inference. Journal of Economic Psychology, 60(June 2017), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2017.03.001
26.
GongX.ZhuR. (2019). Cognitive abilities, non-cognitive skills, and gambling behaviors. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 165(September 2019), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2019.06.016
27.
GosserandR. H.DiefendorffJ. M. (2005). Emotional display rules and emotional labor: The moderating role of commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1256
JohnsonR. E.TolentinoA. L.RodopmanO. B.ChoE. (2010). We (sometimes) know not how we feel: Predicting job performance with an implicit measure of trait affectivity. Personnel Psychology, 63(1), 197–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01166.x
30.
JosephD. L.DhananiL. Y.ShenW.McHughB. C.McCordM. A. (2015). Is a happy leader a good leader? A meta-analytic investigation of leader trait affect and leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(4), 557–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.04.001
31.
KemptnerD.TolanS. (2018). The role of time preferences in educational decision making. Economics of Education Review, 67(December 2018), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.09.006
32.
KimH. T. (2021). Managers’ trait affectivity and cognitive ability as drivers of business practices. Cogent Business & Management, 8(1), 1963179. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1963179
33.
KovnickM. O.YoungY.TranN.TeerawichitchainanB.TranT. K.KorinekK. (2021). The impact of early life war exposure on mental health among older adults in northern and central Vietnam. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 62(4), 526–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/00221465211039239
34.
LindsayL. (2019). Adaptive loss aversion and market experience. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 168(December 2019), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2019.09.023
MataR.FreyR.RichterD.SchuppJ.HertwigR. (2018). Risk preference: A view from psychology. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32(2), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.32.2.155
37.
MeierS.SprengerC. D. (2015). Temporal stability of time preferences. Review of Economics and Statistics, 97(2), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00433
38.
Muñoz-MurilloM.Álvarez-FrancoP. B.Restrepo-TobónD. A. (2020). The role of cognitive abilities on financial literacy: New experimental evidence. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 84(February 2020), 101482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2019.101482
39.
NelisS.BastinM.RaesF.MezulisA.BijttebierP. (2016). Trait affectivity and response styles to positive affect: Negative affectivity relates to dampening and positive affectivity relates to enhancing. Personality and Individual Differences, 96(July 2016), 148–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.087
40.
NguyenQ. (2011). Does nurture matter: Theory and experimental investigation on the effect of working environment on risk and time preferences. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 43(3), 245–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-011-9130-4
41.
NoussairC.NTuckerS.XuY. (2016). Futures markets, cognitive ability, and mispricing in experimental asset markets. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 130(October 2016), 166–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2016.07.010
42.
OechsslerJ.RoiderA.SchmitzP. W. (2009). Cognitive abilities and behavioral biases. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 72(1), 147–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2009.04.018
43.
O’SullivanD.ZolotoyL.FanQ. (2021). CEO early‐life disaster experience and corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal, 42(11), 2137–2161. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3293
44.
SharmaS.TarpF. (2018). Does managerial personality matter? Evidence from firms in Vietnam. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 150(June 2018), 432–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2018.02.003
45.
TanakaT.CamererC. F.NguyenQ. (2010). Risk and time preferences: Linking experimental and household survey data from Vietnam. American Economic Review, 100(1), 557–571. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.1.557
TodakN.WhiteM. D.DarioL. M.BorregoA. R. (2018). Overcoming the challenges of experimental research: Lessons from a criminal justice case study involving TASER exposure. Evaluation Review, 42(3), 358–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X18803205
48.
ToplakM. E.WestR. F.StanovichK. E. (2011). The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks. Memory & cognition, 39(7), 1275–1289. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0104-1
49.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122574
50.
WatsonD. (2000). Mood and temperament. Guilford Press.
51.
WatsonD.ClarkL. A.TellegenA. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063
WooS. E.ChernyshenkoO. S.StarkS. E.ConzG. (2014). Validity of six openness facets in predicting work behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96(1), 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.806329
54.
Ya‘akovM. B.ShtudinerZ.SuhorukovO.GrisaruN. (2019). Time and risk preferences, and consumption decisions of patients with clinical depression. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 78(February 2019), 138–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2019.01.003
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
