Assessing Risk Propensity in Financial Traders: The Feasibility and Implications of Using EEG Technology in Neurofinance
Abstract
Understanding individual risk propensity is crucial for both traders and financial institutions to make informed decisions and manage financial strategies effectively.This study explores the feasibility of using electroencephalography (EEG) to estimate individual risk propensity among professional financial traders. By integrating real-time EEG monitoring with behavioral analysis of trading decisions in simulated market conditions, we aim to identify specific neural patterns associated with risk-taking behavior. A comprehensive literature review highlights the neural correlates of risk propensity and the influence of emotional and cognitive biases on decision-making processes. We propose an experimental design involving professional traders engaged in simulated trading sessions with varying levels of risk, utilizing advanced machine learning techniques to analyze the complex EEG data. Our findings suggest that EEG technology holds significant promise for enhancing our understanding of the neurobiological underpinnings of financial decision-making and could lead to practical applications in risk management and trader training programs. This paper contributes to the discourse on neurofinance by providing a detailed framework for assessing risk propensity through neural measures, emphasizing the potential benefits, challenges, and ethical considerations of implementing EEG technology in financial markets.
References
2. Blais, A.-R., & Weber, E. U. (2006). A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) Scale for Adult Populations. Judgment and Decision Making, 1(1), 33-47.
3. Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2005). Neuroeconomics: How Neuroscience Can Inform Economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 43(1), 9-64.
4. Casson, A. J., et al. (2010). Wearable Electroencephalography. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, 29(3), 44-56.
5. Fama, E. F. (1970). Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work. The Journal of Finance, 25(2), 383-417.
6. Frydman, C., & Camerer, C. F. (2016). The Psychology and Neuroscience of Financial Decision Making. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 661-675.
7. Glimcher, P. W., & Fehr, E. (Eds.). (2013). Neuroeconomics: Decision Making and the Brain (2nd ed.). Academic Press.
8. Hsu, H. T., & Lobo Marques, J. A. (2023). Neurofinance: Exploratory Analysis of Stock Trader's Decision-Making Process by Real-Time Monitoring of Emotional Reactions. Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Management Leadership and Governance.
9. Hussain, A., Shah, A. I., & Ali, A. (2023). The Role of EEG in Risk Propensity Analysis: Applications in High-Frequency Trading. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 24(3), 112-129.
10. Ienca, M., & Andorno, R. (2017). Towards New Human Rights in the Age of Neuroscience and Neurotechnology. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 13(1), 1-27.
11. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
12. Knutson, B., et al. (2008). Nucleus Accumbens Activation Mediates the Influence of Reward Cues on Financial Risk Taking. NeuroReport, 19(5), 509-513.
13. Kuhnen, C. M., & Knutson, B. (2005). The Neural Basis of Financial Risk Taking. Neuron, 47(5), 763-770.
14. Lo, A. W., & Repin, D. V. (2002). The Psychophysiology of Real-Time Financial Risk Processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(3), 323-339.
15. Lotte, F., et al. (2018). A Review of Classification Algorithms for EEG-Based Brain–Computer Interfaces: A 10-Year Update. Journal of Neural Engineering, 15(3), 031005.
16. Luck, S. J. (2014). An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique (2nd ed.). MIT Press.
17. Peterson, R. L. (2007). Affect and Financial Decision-Making: How Neuroscience Can Inform Market Participants. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 8(2), 70-78.
18. Shariff, M. Z., Al-Khasawneh, J., & Al-Mutawa, M. (2014). Risk and Reward: A Neurofinance Perspective. Gulf University for Science and Technology.
19. Smith, K., & Gupta, R. (2022). Neuroeconomic Approaches to Behavioral Finance: The Intersection of Neuroscience and Financial Markets. International Journal of Finance and Economics, 27(4), 2115-2134.
20. Thaler, R. H. (1985). Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice. Marketing Science, 4(3), 199-214.
21. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458.
22. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070.
23. Zak, P. J. (2010). The Neurobiology of Trust: Implications for the Financial Sector. CFA Institute Research Foundation, 2010, 63-76.
24. Zuckerman, M., Gibbons, F. X., & Boneva, B. (2004). Neurophysiological Indicators of Risk Preferences in Traders. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2), 123-141.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
By submitting a paper for publishing the authors hereby comply with the following provisions: 1. The authors retain the copyrights and only give the journal the right for first publication while licensing the work under Creative Commons Attribution License, which grants permissions to others to share the contribution citing this journal as first publication of the text. 2. The authors may enter separate, additional contractual relations for non-exclusive distribution of the published version of the work in this journal (e.g. to upload it in an institutional depository, or to be published in a book), given that they cite the first publication in this journal. 3. The authors are allowed and are encouraged to publish their works online (e.g. to upload it in an institutional depository, personal websites, social networks, etc.) before, during, and after the submission of the paper here, because this may lead to productive exchange, as well as earlier and larger referencing of the published works (see The Effect of Open Access).
