Financial Phenotype System
From Homo Economicus to behavioural phenotyping – a scientific reconstruction of financial decision-making through cognitive psychology and neuroscience.
Beyond Demographics
Traditional financial segmentation relies on demographic variables – age, income, net worth. These metrics fail to capture the underlying cognitive architectures that drive behaviour.
Two individuals with identical net worths may exhibit diametrically opposite behaviours: one hoarding cash due to a chronic prevention focus, the other leveraging assets into high-variance speculations due to sensation-seeking traits.
A phenotype represents the observable expression of an interaction between psychological traits and environment. This system reconstructs five common archetypes using precise scientific nomenclature, synthesising seminal literature on cognitive scarcity, regulatory focus theory, mental accounting, and prospect theory.
The Five Phenotypes
Each represents a distinct cognitive architecture underlying financial behaviour.
Phenotype Combinations
Real behaviour emerges from the interaction of multiple cognitive systems. These six critical pairings demonstrate how phenotypes synergise, conflict, or modulate each other.
Three Modes of Interaction
Synergistic Amplification
Traits align and reinforce, multiplying intensity (e.g., PFM + SSSP = aggressive speculation)
Inhibitory Conflict
Opposing goals create 'tug-of-war', causing paralysis or oscillation (e.g., PFVA + PFM)
State-Dependent Modulation
RDTA acts as override that suppresses other traits under financial stress
Second-Order Insights
Critical distinctions that emerge from comparative analysis across phenotypes.
State vs. Trait
The RDTA's behaviour is state-dependent, not trait-dependent. Alleviating scarcity restores bandwidth – financial education alone will fail.
Strategic vs. Arousal Risk
The PFM takes risk to maximise utility (wealth), often with diversification. The SSSP takes risk to maximise arousal (excitement), concentrating bets on idiosyncratic volatility.
The Mental Accounting Paradox
For the HMA, 'rational' consolidation of debt/savings destroys the self-regulatory framework. Effective architecture must leverage irrationality, not fight it.
Asymmetry of Regret
PFVA regrets commission (acting and losing). PFM regrets omission (missing out). HMA regrets wasted sunk costs. The 'flavor' of regret shapes decision architecture.
Discover Your Phenotype
Take the 30-question behavioural finance quiz to identify your cognitive architecture and receive personalised insights.
Discover Your Phenotype