PANDA Survey

After the completion of our global INTRA study (International Test on Risk Attitudes) with nearly 7000 subjects in 53 countries (joint work with Prof. Thorsten Hens, we want to broaden the view to more diverse economic decisions, but focus on a particularly interesting region of the world: East Asia. To this aim we have conducted several studies in Japan, Taiwan, China, Hong Kong, and Vietnam, but also in Germany and Estonia (for comparison). The main survey has been finished in April 2019 and the winners (one from Germany, one from Japan and two from China) have been informed.

PANDA stands for Preferences, Attitudes, Norms and Decisions in Asia. It consists of a number of surveys (online and offline) and experiments that will be conducted at various partner universities in these countries.

The project is coordinated by Prof. Marc Oliver Rieger and Prof. Mei Wang (WHU - Otto Beisheim School of Management).

Researchers helping with this survey are (among others):

Prof. Bodo Vogt, Universität Magdeburg
Prof. Chen Nai-Shing, NCCU
Prof. Gong Yujing, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan
Prof. Ken Iwatsubo, Kobe University
Prof. Koji Abe, Kobe University
Frau Liu Yang, Hochschule Trier
Prof. Rao Yulei, Central South University, Changsha
Prof. Seng Geng, Xiamen University
Prof. Shen Junyi, Kobe University
Prof. Takeshi Momi, Doshisha University, Kyoto
Prof. Xie Xiaofei, Peking University
Prof. Yuan Shuonan, Xi’an Polytechnic University
Prof. Zhuang Zili, Hong Kong Chinese University
and many others...

Involved PhD students, students and student assistants are:

Berens, David
Bosl, Katharina
Emering, Tobias Peter
Hepke, Silas
He-Ulbricht, Yanping
Höfer, Jan
Kersch, Luisa Regina
Knobloch, Jonas
Korngiebel, Marco
Kroll, Kristian
Massloch, Max
Mattil, Jannik
Phan Chung Thuy
Reitz, Sebastian
Reinhardt, Denis
Scherf, Matthias
Shi, Xinyi
Toan Luu Duc Huynh
Ye, Fen
Yousefi, Masoud

In our main survey alone, more than 6000 subjects participated. The data collection in most countries is completed. The first articles based on these data are published:

Marc Oliver Rieger, Mei Wang, Denis Reinhardt and Max Massloch (2020): Opinions on Technology: a Cultural Divide between East Asia and Germany?", Review of Behavioral Economics.

Marc Oliver Rieger (2020): “Uncertainty avoidance, loss aversion and stock market participation”, Global Finance Journal.

The current (work in progress) version of the dataset can be downloaded here in SPSS format (variable descriptions included).

More details (e.g., codebooks of single studies from the complete survey package) are avaliable on request.

We also refer to our publications on the INTRA study:

Breuer, W.; Rieger, M. O.; Soypak, K. C. (2017): Corporate Cash Holdings and Ambiguity Aversion. In: Review of Finance Vol. 21 (Iss. 5), pp. 1933–1974.

Breuer, W.; Rieger, M. O.; Soypak, K. C. (2014): The behavioral foundations of corporate dividend policy a cross-country analysis" (with Wolfgang Breuer and K. Can Soypak), Journal of Banking and Finance, 42, pp. 247-265.

Rieger, M.; Bui, T. (2011): Too risk averse for prospect theory?, Modern Economy, Vol. 2, Issue 4, pp. 691-700.

Rieger, M. O.; Wang, M. (2012): Can ambiguity aversion solve the equity premium puzzle? Survey evidence from international data", Finance Research Letters, 9(2), pp. 63-72.
Rieger, M. O.; Wang, M.; Hens, T. (2017): Estimating Cumulative Prospect Theory Parameters from an International Survey. In: Theory and Decision Vol. 82 (Issue 4), pp. 567–596.

Rieger, M. O.; Wang, M.; Hens, T. (2015): Risk Preferences Around the World, Management Science, Vol. 61, Issue 3, pp. 637-648.

Rieger, M. O.; Wang, M.; Hens, T. (2013): International evidence on the equity premium puzzle and time discounting, Multinational Finance Journal, 17(3/4), pp. 149-163, 2013.

Wang, M.; Rieger, M. O.; Hens, T. (2017): The Impact of Culture on Loss Aversion. In: Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Vol. 30 (Iss. 2), pp. 270–281.

Wang, M.; Rieger, M. O.; Hens, T. (2016): How Time Preferences Differ: Evidence from 53 Countries, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 115–135.