Table 3 Average ESG investment across all six scenarios.
From: Optimistic framing increases responsible investment of investment professionals
Control | Social Norm | Optimism | Messenger | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Panel A: All subjects | ||||
% ESG investment (options B and D) (Standard deviation) | 64.24 (32.81) | 63.56 (36.45) | 67.87 (33.01) | 64.71 (31.44) |
Observations (subjects) = 2010 (335) | 516 (86) | 336 (56) | 786 (131) | 372 (62) |
One-sided t-test (column condition vs control) | – | t = 0.276 p = 0.391 | t = − 1.949 p = 0.026 | t = − 0.215 p = 0.415 |
Panel B: Subjects with a more optimistic life orientation | ||||
% ESG investment (options B and D) (Standard deviation) | 63.04 (33.18) | 60.80 (37.56) | 73.53 (31.96) | 67.96 (30.90) |
Observations (subjects) = 1356 (226) | 348 (58) | 240 (40) | 486 (81) | 282 (47) |
One sided t-test (column condition vs control) | – | t = − 0.745 p = 0.228 | t = − 4.572 p < 0.001 | t = − 1.922 p = 0.028 |
Panel C: Conservative ESG Allocations | ||||
Mean investment (Standard deviation) | 20.50 (23.36) | 18.34 (21.21) | 17.91 (22.55) | 17.93 (20.55) |
Observations (subjects) = 2010 (335) | 516 (86) | 336 (56) | 786 (131) | 372 (62) |
One sided t-test (column condition vs control) | – | t = 1.395 p = 0.082 | t = 1.983 p = 0.024 | t = 1.715 p = 0.043 |
Panel D: Balanced ESG allocations | ||||
Mean investment (Standard deviation) | 43.74 (31.92) | 45.23 (34.91) | 49.97 (34.41) | 46.78 (32.88) |
Observations (subjects) = 2010 (335) | 516 (86) | 336 (56) | 786 (131) | 372 (62) |
One sided t-test (column condition vs control) | – | t = − 0.626 p = 0.266 | t = − 3.335 p < 0.001 | t = − 1.374 p = 0.085 |
