ArticlePloS one2026
An experiment on the impacts of experiential investment advice.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An experiment is conducted in which investment advice is passed from one cohort to the next. Participants make asset allocation decisions for thirty years to a safe and risky asset and provide annual forecasts (beliefs) on the return on the risky asset. Risky asset returns are drawn from the price returns on the S&P 500 from 1921-2010; Cohorts 1/2/3 received the actual returns in the time period from 1921-1950/1951-1980/1981-2010 respectively. Results show that negative investment advice passed from Cohort 1 to Cohort 2 leads to: 1) significantly lower allocations to the risky asset in Cohort 2 compared to Cohort 1; and 2) a 19% difference in allocations between cohorts who received either positive advice or negative advice in Cohort 2. A second experiment examines the effect on Cohort 3 from receiving consistent and mixed advice from Cohorts 1 and 2. The results from the first experiment are replicated showing that positive (negative) advice received from prior cohorts leads to higher (lower) investment beliefs and portfolio allocations to a riskier asset. Statistical analyses are conducted to determine if the large differences in allocations are driven by changes in beliefs about future returns or changes in risk attitude. The primary takeaway is that experiential cohort advice has a significant impact on subsequent cohorts even when it has little informational value.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.