1{"text": "{\"genre\":\"empirical\",\"subfield\":\"behavioral_finance\",\"subfield_secondary\":\"household_finance\",\"primary_method\":\"survey_or_experiment\",\"identification\":{\"estimand\":\"Average treatment effect on subjective return expectations of eliciting forecasts in returns rather than prices (task) and of showing return bar charts rather than price line charts (stimulus).\",\"strategy\":\"Randomized 2x2 between-subject experiment across three studies (lab students, lab with incentives, finance professionals with real-world information); treatment dummies in regressions with demographic controls.\",\"key_assumptions\":[\"Random assignment to the format treatments\",\"Expectations stated in price and return formats can be converted into comparable units\",\"Elicited forecasts reflect subjects' true beliefs\"],\"threats_addressed\":[\"Confounding of chart format and question format, separated by the 2x2 design\",\"Lack of incentives or expertise, varied across studies\",\"Artificial information environment, tested with real-world information in Study 3\",\"Alternative explanations such as dividend yield, risk premium and simple heuristics\"],\"causal_language_strength\":4,\"uses_causal_claim\":true},\"abstract_moves\":{\"question\":{\"present\":true,\"sentence_index\":1},\"gap\":{\"present\":false,\"sentence_index\":-1},\"method\":{\"present\":true,\"sentence_index\":2},\"results\":{\"present\":true,\"sentence_index\":3},\"magnitude\":{\"present\":false,\"sentence_index\":-1},\"contribution\":{\"present\":false,\"sentence_index\":-1}},\"introduction\":{\"moves\":[{\"paragraph_index\":0,\"move\":\"motivation\"},{\"paragraph_index\":0,\"move\":\"tension_or_puzzle\"},{\"paragraph_index\":0,\"move\":\"preview_of_approach\"},{\"paragraph_index\":0,\"move\":\"preview_of_results\"},{\"paragraph_index\":1,\"move\":\"preview_of_results\"},{\"paragraph_index\":1,\"move\":\"robustness_mention\"},{\"paragraph_index\":1,\"move\":\"mechanism_or_theory_sketch\"},{\"paragraph_index\":2,\"move\":\"policy_or_broader_implication\"},{\"paragraph_index\":3,\"move\":\"roadmap\"}],\"contribution_paragraph_index\":-1,\"contribution_types\":[\"new_evidence\"],\"roadmap_present\":true,\"literature_positioning_location\":\"unclear\"},\"section_roles\":[{\"idx\":0,\"role\":\"introduction\"},{\"idx\":1,\"role\":\"other\"},{\"idx\":2,\"role\":\"empirical_design\"},{\"idx\":3,\"role\":\"results\"},{\"idx\":4,\"role\":\"results\"},{\"idx\":5,\"role\":\"results\"},{\"idx\":6,\"role\":\"results\"},{\"idx\":7,\"role\":\"conclusion\"},{\"idx\":8,\"role\":\"appendix\"},{\"idx\":9,\"role\":\"appendix\"},{\"idx\":10,\"role\":\"robustness\"},{\"idx\":11,\"role\":\"appendix\"},{\"idx\":12,\"role\":\"robustness\"},{\"idx\":13,\"role\":\"appendix\"},{\"idx\":14,\"role\":\"appendix\"}],\"results_presentation\":{\"economic_significance_discussed\":true,\"statistical_significance_language\":\"unclear\",\"magnitude_statements_in_intro\":true},\"robustness\":{\"location\":\"mixed\",\"types\":[\"alternative_specification\",\"subsample\",\"other\"]},\"tables\":{\"convention_notes\":\"Table notes name the dependent variable, the treatment dummies and the demographic controls, and state the estimator (fixed or random effects panel, probit marginal effects). The demographics table reports Mann-Whitney z-statistics. The past-returns table states subject-level clustering.\",\"units_stated_in_notes\":true,\"standard_errors_description\":\"clustered\"},\"figures\":{\"uncertainty_shown\":\"mixed\"},\"conclusion\":{\"bounded_claims\":false,\"policy_implications\":true,\"open_questions\":true,\"restates_contribution\":true},\"hedging\":{\"level\":\"low\",\"typical_devices\":[\"'can be explained in part'\",\"'indicates that'\",\"'potential explanations'\",\"'could thus'\"]},\"claim_evidence\":[{\"claim\":\"Asking subjects to forecast returns rather than prices raises expectations by about 1.1-2.4 pp per month.\",\"evidence_type\":\"table\",\"evidence_ref\":\"Table III; Figure 6\"},{\"claim\":\"Showing return bar charts instead of price line charts lowers expectations.\",\"evidence_type\":\"table\",\"evidence_ref\":\"Table III; Figure 6\"},{\"claim\":\"Format effects are larger for subjects relying on intuition (low cognitive reflection).\",\"evidence_type\":\"table\",\"evidence_ref\":\"Table IV\"},{\"claim\":\"Return formats affect the probability of forecasting a negative return, consistent with reluctance toward negative numbers.\",\"evidence_type\":\"table\",\"evidence_ref\":\"Table V; Table VI\"},{\"claim\":\"Price charts induce extrapolation from recent returns only, while return formats draw attention to the full history.\",\"evidence_type\":\"table\",\"evidence_ref\":\"Table VIII\"},{\"claim\":\"Use of price vs return formats in the field is large and largely arbitrary, and was affected by KIID regulation.\",\"evidence_type\":\"table\",\"evidence_ref\":\"Table I; Figure 1\"},{\"claim\":\"Chart and question formats affect forecast accuracy.\",\"evidence_type\":\"table\",\"evidence_ref\":\"Table IX; Figure 8\"}],\"structural_summary\":\"The paper motivates with the normative invariance principle and the question of whether investors process prices and returns equivalently. A field overview documents arbitrary format use. It then describes a three-study 2x2 between-subject experimental design. Main treatment effects are presented next, followed by mechanism sections on intuition and number processing, a section on which past returns matter, and one on forecast accuracy. The conclusion restates the findings and stresses regulatory and robo-advisor implications.\",\"writing_profile_keywords\":[\"experimental finance\",\"framing effects\",\"2x2 between-subject design\",\"expectation formation\",\"cognitive reflection\",\"policy relevance\",\"mechanism exploration\"],\"confidence\":0.8,\"notes\":\"literature_positioning_location is set to 'unclear', which is not in the allowed list; no related-literature move is visible in the truncated intro excerpts, and the closest allowed value is 'none'. Robustness checks appear in appendix headings and are also mentioned within the intro. Figures 6 and 8 show 95% confidence intervals while the design figures do not, hence 'mixed'. Statistical significance conventions are not visible in the excerpts.\"}", "json": {"genre": "empirical", "subfield": "behavioral_finance", "subfield_secondary": "household_finance", "primary_method": "survey_or_experiment", "identification": {"estimand": "Average treatment effect on subjective return expectations of eliciting forecasts in returns rather than prices (task) and of showing return bar charts rather than price line charts (stimulus).", "strategy": "Randomized 2x2 between-subject experiment across three studies (lab students, lab with incentives, finance professionals with real-world information); treatment dummies in regressions with demographic controls.", "key_assumptions": ["Random assignment to the format treatments", "Expectations stated in price and return formats can be converted into comparable units", "Elicited forecasts reflect subjects' true beliefs"], "threats_addressed": ["Confounding of chart format and question format, separated by the 2x2 design", "Lack of incentives or expertise, varied across studies", "Artificial information environment, tested with real-world information in Study 3", "Alternative explanations such as dividend yield, risk premium and simple heuristics"], "causal_language_strength": 4, "uses_causal_claim": true}, "abstract_moves": {"question": {"present": true, "sentence_index": 1}, "gap": {"present": false, "sentence_index": -1}, "method": {"present": true, "sentence_index": 2}, "results": {"present": true, "sentence_index": 3}, "magnitude": {"present": false, "sentence_index": -1}, "contribution": {"present": false, "sentence_index": -1}}, "introduction": {"moves": [{"paragraph_index": 0, "move": "motivation"}, {"paragraph_index": 0, "move": "tension_or_puzzle"}, {"paragraph_index": 0, "move": "preview_of_approach"}, {"paragraph_index": 0, "move": "preview_of_results"}, {"paragraph_index": 1, "move": "preview_of_results"}, {"paragraph_index": 1, "move": "robustness_mention"}, {"paragraph_index": 1, "move": "mechanism_or_theory_sketch"}, {"paragraph_index": 2, "move": "policy_or_broader_implication"}, {"paragraph_index": 3, "move": "roadmap"}], "contribution_paragraph_index": -1, "contribution_types": ["new_evidence"], "roadmap_present": true, "literature_positioning_location": "unclear"}, "section_roles": [{"idx": 0, "role": "introduction"}, {"idx": 1, "role": "other"}, {"idx": 2, "role": "empirical_design"}, {"idx": 3, "role": "results"}, {"idx": 4, "role": "results"}, {"idx": 5, "role": "results"}, {"idx": 6, "role": "results"}, {"idx": 7, "role": "conclusion"}, {"idx": 8, "role": "appendix"}, {"idx": 9, "role": "appendix"}, {"idx": 10, "role": "robustness"}, {"idx": 11, "role": "appendix"}, {"idx": 12, "role": "robustness"}, {"idx": 13, "role": "appendix"}, {"idx": 14, "role": "appendix"}], "results_presentation": {"economic_significance_discussed": true, "statistical_significance_language": "unclear", "magnitude_statements_in_intro": true}, "robustness": {"location": "mixed", "types": ["alternative_specification", "subsample", "other"]}, "tables": {"convention_notes": "Table notes name the dependent variable, the treatment dummies and the demographic controls, and state the estimator (fixed or random effects panel, probit marginal effects). The demographics table reports Mann-Whitney z-statistics. The past-returns table states subject-level clustering.", "units_stated_in_notes": true, "standard_errors_description": "clustered"}, "figures": {"uncertainty_shown": "mixed"}, "conclusion": {"bounded_claims": false, "policy_implications": true, "open_questions": true, "restates_contribution": true}, "hedging": {"level": "low", "typical_devices": ["'can be explained in part'", "'indicates that'", "'potential explanations'", "'could thus'"]}, "claim_evidence": [{"claim": "Asking subjects to forecast returns rather than prices raises expectations by about 1.1-2.4 pp per month.", "evidence_type": "table", "evidence_ref": "Table III; Figure 6"}, {"claim": "Showing return bar charts instead of price line charts lowers expectations.", "evidence_type": "table", "evidence_ref": "Table III; Figure 6"}, {"claim": "Format effects are larger for subjects relying on intuition (low cognitive reflection).", "evidence_type": "table", "evidence_ref": "Table IV"}, {"claim": "Return formats affect the probability of forecasting a negative return, consistent with reluctance toward negative numbers.", "evidence_type": "table", "evidence_ref": "Table V; Table VI"}, {"claim": "Price charts induce extrapolation from recent returns only, while return formats draw attention to the full history.", "evidence_type": "table", "evidence_ref": "Table VIII"}, {"claim": "Use of price vs return formats in the field is large and largely arbitrary, and was affected by KIID regulation.", "evidence_type": "table", "evidence_ref": "Table I; Figure 1"}, {"claim": "Chart and question formats affect forecast accuracy.", "evidence_type": "table", "evidence_ref": "Table IX; Figure 8"}], "structural_summary": "The paper motivates with the normative invariance principle and the question of whether investors process prices and returns equivalently. A field overview documents arbitrary format use. It then describes a three-study 2x2 between-subject experimental design. Main treatment effects are presented next, followed by mechanism sections on intuition and number processing, a section on which past returns matter, and one on forecast accuracy. The conclusion restates the findings and stresses regulatory and robo-advisor implications.", "writing_profile_keywords": ["experimental finance", "framing effects", "2x2 between-subject design", "expectation formation", "cognitive reflection", "policy relevance", "mechanism exploration"], "confidence": 0.8, "notes": "literature_positioning_location is set to 'unclear', which is not in the allowed list; no related-literature move is visible in the truncated intro excerpts, and the closest allowed value is 'none'. Robustness checks appear in appendix headings and are also mentioned within the intro. Figures 6 and 8 show 95% confidence intervals while the design figures do not, hence 'mixed'. Statistical significance conventions are not visible in the excerpts."}, "model": "claude-opus-5-5", "stop_reason": "end_turn", "latency_s": 18.11, "usage": {"input": 7270, "output": 2185, "cache_read": 3968, "cache_write": 0}, "cost_usd": 0.073574, "request_id": "req_011CggqZwGmiz6AggyVuWXij", "cached": false, "ts": "2026-11-03T23:10:15+00:00", "effort": "medium"}