This analysis uncovers how psychological and socio-demographic factors shape financial decision-making, suggesting ways to enhance personalized financial advice.
This article explores how behavioural, psychological, and socio-demographic factors interact in shaping financial decision-making (FDM) within the framework of the European Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II). The objective is to define a personalised model of behavioural finance that aligns with MiFID II’s requirement for investor profiling and transparent advice. A total of 155 participants (aged 18–60) completed online questionnaires assessing financial literacy − divided into knowledge, behaviour, and attitude − together with psychological measures of impulsiveness, time perspective, behavioural activation/inhibition systems, and temperament traits. Gender differences and relationships among these variables were examined through t-tests, MANOVAs, and chi-square analyses. Results revealed that men scored higher in financial knowledge and literacy, whereas women exhibited higher behavioural inhibition. Temperament types influenced impulsiveness and time perspectives: Rationalists appeared less impulsive and more future-oriented, while Idealists and Artisans were more hedonistic and risk-seeking. Higher financial literacy was associated with more cautious investment decisions and a preference for low-risk portfolios, supporting the idea that knowledge enhances prudence rather than risk tolerance. These findings highlight the importance of multilayered profiling that integrates behavioural, psychological, and socio-demographic dimensions to improve personalised financial advice. The study concludes that the implementation of MiFID II should incorporate these multidimensional insights to foster informed, responsible, and tailored financial decision-making. Future research should extend this model by testing how such profiles influence real investment choices under uncertainty.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ventre et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: