Abstract

The increasing use of mobile trading applications has made investing more accessible to younger retail investors, while also introducing game-like features that may influence financial decision-making. This paper investigates the question: To what extent does the gamification of finance and investing apps influence cognitive biases and high-risk financial decision-making among young retail investors? Drawing on behavioural finance theory and experimental and observational research, the paper examines how gamification may interact with cognitive biases including loss aversion, the disposition effect, overconfidence and investor attention. Evidence from research on digital engagement practices and platforms such as Robinhood suggests that features including notifications, rewards, achievement badges and celebratory animations can increase trading activity and, in some circumstances, risk-taking. However, the evidence also indicates that individual characteristics, financial literacy, investing experience and pre-existing risk preferences significantly influence investor behaviour. Therefore, gamification appears to influence high-risk financial decision-making primarily as an amplifying mechanism, rather than as an independent cause. The paper concludes that financial platforms should limit potentially manipulative design while preserving features that improve accessibility and financial understanding.

1. Introduction

Retail investing has undergone a significant demographic shift over the past decade, with younger investors increasingly entering financial markets through mobile platforms. Retail investors now account for roughly one-fifth of daily trading volume in US equity markets, while Gen-Z and Millennials represent over 60% of retail activity (SQ Magazine, 2025). This shift has also been increasingly app-based: 65% of Gen-Z investors report managing their investments primarily through an app, compared with 55% of Millennials and 38% of Gen-X investors (CFA Institute, 2023). As investing becomes increasingly accessible through mobile platforms, the design of these interfaces has become an increasingly relevant factor in how young retail investors interact with financial markets.

These platforms are not simply neutral tools for executing trades. Many incorporate gamifications, broadly understood as the use of game-like features to increase user engagement. The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) includes gamification within the broader category of “digital engagement practices” (DEPs), alongside behavioural prompts and other design features intended to engage retail investors (SEC, 2021). Features such as push notifications, leaderboards and prize-based rewards can make trading more immediate and interactive. This is particularly relevant to young investors: an FCA experiment involving over 9,000 participants found that DEPs could increase trading frequency and investment risk, with some evidence of larger effects among participants aged 18–34 (FCA, 2024).

The behavioural significance of gamification lies in its potential interaction with established cognitive biases. Overconfidence and the illusion of control may lead investors to overestimate their ability to predict or influence uncertain market outcomes, while present bias can encourage disproportionate attention to immediate rewards over longer-term objectives. Gamified features may interact with these tendencies by providing frequent feedback, immediate reinforcement and repeated opportunities to act, potentially increasing the salience of short-term outcomes and encouraging continued engagement. These mechanisms are particularly relevant to young investors, who already display comparatively greater engagement with higher-risk investment activities: a 2025 FINRA survey found that 62% of investors under 35 believed they needed to take big risks to achieve their financial goals, while 43% reported trading options and 29% reported purchasing meme stocks (Wang & Lee, 2026).

The growing use of these features has therefore raised concerns about whether design intended to increase engagement can also influence financial risk-taking. However, this relationship cannot necessarily be attributed to gamification alone. Younger investors may differ in risk tolerance, financial literacy and investment experience, while investors already inclined toward risk may be more likely to use highly interactive platforms. This distinction is supported by the FCA’s research: experimental evidence found that DEPs can affect trading behaviour, while later observational research found associations between high-DEP apps and poorer outcomes without establishing causation. The central issue is therefore not simply whether gamification is associated with riskier investing, but the extent to which gamified design influences cognitive biases and contributes to high-risk financial decision-making beyond investors’ existing behavioural predispositions.

This paper therefore evaluates the extent to which gamification in finance and investing apps influences cognitive biases and high-risk financial decision-making among young retail investors, particularly those aged 18–34. It hypothesises that gamified design features may amplify susceptibility to cognitive biases, particularly overconfidence and the illusion of control, by increasing the salience of immediate feedback and short-term outcomes, contributing to more frequent trading and greater risk exposure. However, gamification is expected to function primarily as an amplifying mechanism rather than an independent cause of high-risk behaviour, with its influence likely to be stronger among investors who already possess greater risk tolerance or other predispositions toward speculative decision-making.

2. Literature Review and Context

2.1 BEHAVIOURAL FINANCE AND RETAIL INVESTOR DECISION-MAKING

Traditional financial models generally assume that investors make rational decisions by processing available information and evaluating risk and return objectively. Behavioural finance challenges this assumption by demonstrating that investment decisions can be systematically influenced by psychological biases. These biases are particularly relevant when considering retail investors, whose decisions may be affected by emotions and cognitive shortcuts rather than solely by fundamental information. 

One of the foundational theories in behavioural finance is prospect theory, developed by Kahneman and Tversky (1979). Rather than evaluating outcome solely according to their final monetary value, individuals evaluate gains and losses relative to a reference point. The theory proposes that the value function is steeper for losses than for equivalent gains, meaning that the psychological impact of losing a given amount is generally greater than the satisfaction associated with gaining the same amount. Investors may therefore respond differently to otherwise equivalent gains and losses. 

This distinction is particularly important in financial markets because investors are repeatedly exposed to fluctuating asset prices. A falling investment does not simply represent a change in monetary value; it can also generate a psychologically significant loss relative to the investor’s purchase price. Consequently, loss aversion provides an important theoretical basis for understanding why investors may behave differently when their investments are performing poorly.

2.2 LOSS AVERSION AND THE DISPOSITION EFFECT

One of the most established behavioural patterns associated with loss aversion is the disposition effect. Shefrin and Statman (1985) describe this as the tendency for investors to sell assets that have increased in value while holding assets that have declined in value. Their theory links this behaviours to loss aversion, alongside factors such as mental accounting and regret aversion. Odean (1998) provided empirical evidence for the disposition effect by analysing the trading records of 10,000 brokerage accounts. Investors were significantly more likely to realise gains than losses, and the losing investments they continued to hold subsequently performed worse than the winning investments they had sold. This suggests that reluctance to realise losses can have consequences for investment performance. The disposition effect is therefore important to this research because it demonstrates how a psychological bias can translate into observable investment behaviour. However, holding a declining asset is not necessarily irrational; investors may have legitimate expectations that its value will recover. The behavioural explanation becomes more relevant when holding the asset is influenced by an unwillingness to realise the loss.

2.3 GAMIFICATION AND RETAIL TRADING

The development of mobile trading platforms has introduced another potential influence on investor behaviours: gamification. Financial platforms increasingly use game-like features such as achievement badges, celebratory animations, progress indications, notifications and rewards to increase user engagement. Research suggests that these features can influence financial decision-making. Hüller, Reimann and Warren (2023) found across six experiments involving 3,776 participants that gamified financial platforms encouraged riskier choices than non-gamified platforms. They argue that game elements can introduce an additional goal of “winning”, meaning that users may become motivated by the game-like experience as well as the financial outcome. However, the effects of gamification are not necessarily uniform. Chapkovski, Khapko and Zoican (2024) found that hedonic gamification increased trading volume by approximately 5.17% in their experiment. At the same time, around 70% of the difference in trading activity between gamified and non-gamified platforms was attributed to self-selection rather than gamification itself. This suggests that individual characteristics and pre-existing preferences also influence how users respond to gamified financial platforms.

2.4 DIGITAL PLATFORMS AND INVESTOR ATTENTION

The design of mobile trading applications may also influence what investors pay attention to. Notifications, visual feedback and frequent market updates can repeatedly draw users’ attention towards particular investments. Barber et al. (2022) examined Robinhood users and found evidence of greater attention-induced trading among Robinhood investors. They also found that intense buying by these users predicted negative subsequent returns for stocks receiving the most attention. This suggests that platform design and user attention can influence trading behaviour beyond traditional financial information. This is relevant to gamification because features such as notifications and visual rewards may encourage users to repeatedly engage with their portfolios. However, attention-driven trading and the disposition effect are distinct mechanisms and should not automatically be treated as the same behaviour.

2.5 LITERATURE GAP

The existing research establishes three important findings: first, loss aversion can cause investors to experience losses more strongly than equivalent gains (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979); second, this psychological tendency is associated with the disposition effect, in which investors tend to realise gains while holding losses (Shefrin & Statman, 1985; Odean, 1998); and third, research suggests that gamification and digital platform design can influence trading activity, risk-taking and investor attention (Hüller, Reimann & Warren, 2023; Chapkovski, Khapko & Zoican, 2024; Barber et al., 2022). However, existing research does not establish that gamification directly causes the disposition effect. This creates an important area for further investigation: whether gamified features interact with loss aversion and the disposition effect, particularly when investors experience losses during periods of market volatility. The following section therefore builds on this literature by developing a theoretical framework for analysing this relationship.

3. Analytical and Experimental Framework

The analytical and experimental approach is useful for determining to what extent gamification actually causes young retail investors to make riskier financial decisions. Gamification is used throughout the business world and can include features such as achievement badges, points, leaderboards, push notifications and other elements that make investing feel more interactive. These features may influence behavioural biases by increasing excitement, encouraging frequent interaction and shifting an investor’s attention away from long-term financial outcomes toward short-term rewards. 

One of the strongest experimental studies comes from Chapkovski, Khapko and Zoican (2024). The researchers used a randomised online trading experiment in which participants were exposed to either gamified or non-gamified investing platforms. They found that features such as confetti and achievement badges increased trading volume by 5.17% on average. Importantly, their experimental framework also separated the direct effect of gamification from self-selection: “approximately 70% of the difference in trading activity was associated with investors choosing the type of platform they preferred, while about 30% was attributable to the gamification itself” (Chapkovski, Khapko & Zoican, 2024). This distinction is important because it suggests that gamification does influence investor behaviour, but it is not the only explanation. Young investors who are already attracted to excitement and frequent trading may also be more likely to choose highly gamified platforms.

Experimental research also shows that gamification can make investors more willing to take financial risks. Hüller, Reimann and Warren (2023) conducted six experiments with 3,766 participants and found that people using gamified financial platforms made riskier choices than people using regular, non-gamified platforms. Their research suggests that features designed to make investing feel like a game can create a sense of “winning”, which may cause investors to focus more on reaching a goal or earning a reward than on making the safest financial decision. Once that goal was reached, the increase in risk-taking became smaller. Gamification can have an impact on decision-making by making emotional rewards feel more important in the moment than the possible financial consequences.

The effect may be especially important for young and financially inexperienced investors. A large experiment conducted for the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) involved more than 9,000 consumers and tested features including flashing prices, push notifications, trader leaderboards and points with prize draws. The study found that these digital engagement features could increase both trading frequency and investment risk, with stronger effects among participants ages 18–34 and people with lower financial literacy. Younger investors may be more easily influenced because they often have less investing experience and may not realise how much an app’s design is affecting their decisions.

Gamification may also strengthen certain cognitive biases. For example, repeated rewards or positive feedback can increase overconfidence by making investors feel more successful than they actually are, while notifications and popular investment trends may encourage herding behaviours. This helps explain why gamified features can influence not only how often young investors trade, but also how they judge risk.More recent research supports this connection. Chapkovski, Khapko and Zoican studied 605 people from four different countries and used achievement badges and motivational messages to see whether they would affect investment choices. They found that these features made people more likely to take risks, especially when the market was already unstable. The effect was strongest among people with less investing experience and lower financial literacy. In fact, higher financial literacy reduced the effect of these gamified features by about 56% (Chapkovski, Khapko & Zoican, 2024). 

At the same time, gamification does not always make every cognitive bias worse. Şenol and Onay (2023) compared how investors behaved in a stock market simulation game with how they invested in real life. They found that using the game sometimes reduced overconfidence and the disposition effect but increased other biases such as familiarity bias and status quo bias. This shows that gamification is not always harmful. Its effect can depend on the type of feature being used, how experienced the investor is and what kind of behaviours the app is encouraging.

Overall, the research suggests that gamification influences risky financial decision-making to a meaningful extent, but it does not affect every investor in the same way. Gamified features can increase trading and risk-taking, especially among younger, less experienced investors with lower financial literacy. However, gamification is not the only reason people make risky choices. Instead, it appears to have the strongest effect when it reinforces cognitive biases and behaviours that an investor may already have.

4. Case Studies and Platform Interventions

4.1 ROBINHOOD: THE CONFETTI CASE

Robinhood is the paradigm case in the literature, largely because its interventions are so well-documented and so directly tied to regulatory consequence. The platform was designed to make investing feel accessible, engaging and simple, especially for younger or less-experienced investors. Features such as push notifications, celebratory animations and the original confetti animation made the trading experience feel similar to receiving a reward in a game. The original confetti animation, a burst of colourful particles triggered after a completed trade, became, almost by accident, the single most-cited symbol of trading-app gamification in both academic and legal writing.

The regulatory record traces a clean arc. In December 2020, Massachusetts securities regulators filed a complaint alleging “aggressive tactics to attract inexperienced investors, use of gamification strategies to manipulate customers and failure to prevent frequent outages and disruptions.” Robinhood initially defended the feature – Head of Product Madhu Muthukumar argued the confetti was intended as positive reinforcement for a generation historically shut out of public markets – but by March 2021, the company reversed course, removing confetti and describing the criticism as a “distraction” from its stated mission. That reversal did not resolve the underlying dispute. In January 2024, the Massachusetts Securities Division issued a consent order, and Robinhood agreed to pay a $7.5 million fine and overhaul its digital engagement practices to settle the matter.

4.2 FCA TRADING-APP EXPERIMENT: TESTING DIGITAL ENGAGEMENT PRACTICES

A second important case study comes from the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority, which tested how specific digital engagement practices affect investor behaviour. In an online experiment involving more than 9,000 consumers, the FCA created a trading-app environment and tested four features: flashing prices, push notifications, trader leaderboards and points connected to prize draws. These features were designed to attract attention but did not provide additional information that could improve investment decisions (FCA, 2024).

The results provide evidence that certain features can directly influence trading behaviour. Push notifications increased the number of trades by 11%, while points and prize draws increased trading by 12%. These features also increased the proportion of trades involving risky investments by 8% and 6%, respectively. The effects were particularly relevant to this paper because younger participants aged 18-34 showed greater increases in portfolio risk than older participants across most of the digital engagement practices. Participants with lower financial literacy also showed increases in trading when exposed to certain features (FCA, 2024).

The case also demonstrates why individual design features should not automatically be treated as equally harmful. Flashing prices and trader leaderboards did not significantly increase the overall number of trades, while push notifications and prize draws did. This suggests that the behavioural effect depends on the specific feature and how it interacts with investor characteristics. The FCA therefore concluded that trading-app design should be closely monitored, particularly when features may exploit behavioural biases or encourage frequent and risky trading. 

The FCA case complements the Robinhood example because it provides experimental evidence rather than relying only on one company’s design choices. Robinhood demonstrates how gamified features can lead to regulatory intervention, while the FCA experiment shows that specific digital engagement features can measurably change investor behaviour. Together, the cases support the argument that gamification may act as an amplifying mechanism, particularly for younger or less financially experienced investors, rather than being the sole cause of risky financial decisions.

5. Discussion

Mobile trading applications have evolved into appealing platforms for younger investors and have changed the way that these individuals interact with the market by making investing easier, faster and more accessible. However, these same features that make trading platforms approachable can also influence investor’s behaviours, positively and negatively. Features that can all be found in games such as streak tracking, celebratory animations, push notifications and rewards can make trading and investing more engaging, but it can also lead to investors approaching financial decisions in ways similar to that of a mobile game. This becomes extremely significant in times of human bias such as loss aversion and the disposition effect. Loss aversion is an effect that causes losses to have a greater psychological impact than possible equivalent gains. The disposition effect, however, causes investors to have a higher chance of selling investments with gained value and holding onto those that lose value because of loss aversion. During periods of market volatility, these biases can become stronger, causing investors to react rapidly and emotionally to changing prices.

The user experience of gamified platforms could potentially negatively reinforce behaviours of investors through rewards and other engaging items within the application. For example, a notification or a celebratory animation after a successful trade could cause a sense of accomplishment and encourage additional trading. Similarly, constant push notifications could lead to investors feeling pressured to react to changing market prices instead of considering long-term options. This does not necessarily mean that gamified trading platforms are to blame for causing poor financial decisions. Rather, their design may increase psychological impacts and human biases that make emotional and irrational decisions easier to act upon. This distinction is important because investors are still responsible for their own financial decisions, and not every investor who uses a gamified platform will make risky decisions. Factors such as financial literacy, previous investing experience, risk tolerance and individual investment goals can also influence how a person responds to these features.

The potential benefits of gamification should also be considered when discussing regulation. Making investing more visually understandable and interactive may encourage younger people to become more interested in financial markets and learn about investing. For inexperienced investors, simple progress indicators or educational prompts could make complicated financial concepts easier to understand. Therefore, completely removing gamification may not be the most appropriate solution. Instead, the main concern should be whether a particular feature encourages informed financial behaviour or primarily encourages users to trade more frequently. A feature that provides educational information is different from one that creates excitement around completing a trade, even though both could technically be considered forms of engagement.

This brings forth an important ethical dilemma between trading platforms and human nature. The gamification of applications can make trading understandable and more accessible but can also favour user engagement over informed and rational decision-making. Platforms could possibly address this by allowing notifications and streaks to be disabled or reducing animations and visual effects surrounding trades. These platforms could also introduce “cool down” periods and behavioural warnings before trades are made to ensure that investors do not make illogical and uninformed decisions. Additional measures could include clearer risk warnings, reminders about long-term investment goals and default settings that can reduce unnecessary notifications. These interventions would preserve the accessibility of mobile investing while giving users greater control over how the platform influences their attention and behaviour. 

There is also an important question surrounding the responsibility of the platforms themselves. Trading applications have access to detailed information about how frequently users trade and interact with different features. This creates the possibility for platforms to identify behaviours associated with excessive or highly reactive trading. However, using this information to increase engagement could create an ethical conflict if platforms benefit financially from users trading more frequently. The responsibility of platforms should therefore extend beyond simply providing access to financial markets. They should also consider whether their interface encourages users to make decisions based on relevant financial information or predictable psychological responses.

Together, these policies would not stop user engagement but would encourage platforms to support informed investing instead of exploiting predictable psychological responses. Fundamentally, the ethical challenge is determining how trading platforms can still remain accessible and engaging without turning financial decision-making into a form of entertainment that could encourage emotionally driven and unnecessary trading.

6. Conclusion

The evidence examined in this paper suggests that gamification can influence retail investor behaviour, but its effects should not be understood as a simple or universal cause of irrational investing. Across experimental and observational research, features such as achievement badges, celebratory animations, notifications, rewards and other digital engagement practices have been associated with increased trading frequency, greater risk-taking and changes in investor attention (Hüller, Reimann & Warren, 2023; Chapkovski, Khapko & Zoican, 2024; Barber et al., 2022). These effects appear particularly relevant for younger and less financially experienced investors. However, the evidence also suggests that individual characteristics and pre-existing preferences play an important role. Chapkovski, Khapko and Zoican (2024), for example, found that approximately 70% of the difference in trading activity between gamified and non-gamified platforms was explained by self-selection, with gamification itself accounting for approximately 30%. Therefore, gamification appears to function more as an amplifying mechanism than as an independent cause of risk financial behaviour. 

The findings also demonstrate that gamification does not affect every cognitive bias or investor in the same way. While gamified environments have been associated with increased risk-taking, trading and attention, research has also found that some forms of gamification can reduce certain biases while increasing others. This suggests that the behavioural consequences depend on the specific feature being used, the characteristics of the investor and the behaviour that the platform is encouraging. Consequently, treating all gamification as inherently harmful would overlook the complexity of the evidence.

6.1 POLICY AND ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS

The central policy challenge is therefore not whether financial problems should eliminate gamification entirely, but where the boundary should be placed between engagement and manipulation. Features that make investing more accessible or understandable can provide legitimate benefits to consumers. However, design features that exploit predictable psychological tendencies in order to encourage unnecessary or excessively frequent trading raise greater concerns about consumer protection and autonomy.

A balanced approach would focus on reducing potentially harmful design features while preserving investors’ ability to make their own decisions. Platforms could provide greater control over push notifications, allow users to disable rewards and visual effects and introduce behavioural warnings or short “cool-down” periods following unusually frequent trading. These measures would not prevent investors from trading but could create additional opportunities for reflection before a decision is made. The ethical objective should therefore be to reduce the exploitation of cognitive biases without unnecessarily restricting consumer choice.

6.2 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

There are several limitations to the existing research. First, much of the real-world evidence is concentrated around particular platforms and investor groups, meaning that the findings may not apply equally across all financial markets or demographics. Second, gamification encompasses a wide range of features, including notifications, rewards, leaderboards and animations, which may affect behaviour through different mechanisms. Treating these features collectively makes it difficult to determine which individual design choices have the greatest behavioural impact. 

Most importantly, existing research does not establish that gamification directly causes the disposition effect. The literature provides evidence connecting gamification with trading frequency, risk-taking and investor attention, while behavioural finance research separately establishes the existence of biases such as loss aversion and the disposition effect. However, the precise relationship between these mechanisms remains underexplored. This represents an important area for future research. 

Future studies could experimentally test individual gamification features rather than treating gamification as a single intervention. Researchers could compare different versions of the same trading platform and measure changes in trading frequency, risk-taking, attention and the tendency to realise gains or hold losses. Further research could also compare younger and more experienced investors and examine whether financial literacy changes the impact of gamified design. Finally, investigating investor behaviour during periods of high market volatility could help determine whether gamification interacts with emotional responses to rapidly changing gains and losses.

Overall, the evidence suggests that gamification is neither inherently beneficial nor inherently harmful. Its impact depends on how it is designed, which investors encounter it and which behaviours it encourages. The most important policy question is therefore not whether financial platforms engage users, but whether they do so by supporting informed financial decision-making or by exploiting predictable psychological biases to increase engagement and trading activity.

Barber, B.M. and Odean, T. (2000). Trading is hazardous to your wealth: The common stock investment performance of individual investors. The Journal of Finance, 55(2), pp. 773–806.

Barber, B.M., Huang, X., Odean, T. and Schwarz, C. (2022). Attention-Induced Trading and Returns: Evidence from Robinhood Users. The Journal of Finance, 77(6), pp. 3141–3190.

CFA Institute (2022). Fun and Games: Investment Gamification and Implications for Capital Markets. [pdf] <https://rpc.cfainstitute.org/sites/default/files/-/media/documents/article/industry-research/investment-gamification-implications.pdf>

CFA Institute (2023). Gen Z and Investing: Social Media, Crypto, FOMO, and Family. [pdf] <https://rpc.cfainstitute.org/sites/default/files/-/media/documents/article/industry-research/Gen_Z_and_Investing.pdf>

Chapkovski, P., Khapko, M. and Zoican, M. (2024). Trading Gamification and Investor Behavior. Management Science, 72(1), pp. 32–56.

Clarke, A. (2023). How Powerful is Gamification in Investing? Nasdaq [online]. <https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/how-powerful-is-gamification-in-investing>

Elad, B. and Lee, R.A. (2025). Stock Market Participation Statistics 2026: The Wealth Shift Explained. SQ Magazine [online]. <https://sqmagazine.co.uk/stock-market-participation-statistics/>

Gallo, N. (2022). Robinhood and the Gamification of Investing. Finmasters [online]. <https://finmasters.com/gamification-of-investing/>

Gathergood, J., Gilchrist, C., Hayes, L., Karapetyan, D., O’Neill, S. and Stewart, N. (2024) Research Note: Digital engagement practices: a trading apps experiment. Financial Conduct Authority [pdf]. <https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/research-notes/research-note-digital-engagement-practices-trading-apps-experiment.pdf>

Hüller, C., Reimann, M. and Warren, C. (2023). When Financial Platforms Become Gamified, Consumers’ Risk Preferences Change. Journal of the Association of Consumer Research, 8(4).

Hoerr, T. (2025). How gamification is changing trading. Forbes [online]. <https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2025/01/10/how-gamification-is-changing-trading/>

Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), pp. 263–292.

Ljungkvist, H. and Moore, M. (2022). Gamification and its Effect on Investor Behaviour: A Qualitative Study Investigating the Gamified Trading Platform Avanza. UMEA School of Business, Economics and Statistics. [pdf] <https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1676541/FULLTEXT01.pdf>

Odean, T. (1998). Are Investors Reluctant to Realize Their Losses?. The Journal of Finance, 53(5), pp. 1775–1798.

Ontario Securities Commission (2019). Gamification and Retail Investing: Positive Use Cases and Mitigation Techniques. OSC [online]. <https://www.osc.ca/en/investors/investor-research-and-reports/gamification-and-retail-investing-positive-use-cases-and-mitigation-techniques>

Securities and Exchange Commission (2021). SEC Requests Information and Comment on Broker-Dealer and Investment Adviser Digital Engagement Practices, Related Tools and Methods, and Regulatory Considerations and Potential Approaches. SEC [online]. <https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021-167>

Senol, D. and Onay, C. (2023). Impact of gamification on mitigating behavioral biases of investors. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 37, 100772.

Shefrin, H. and Statman, M. (1985). The Disposition to Sell Winners Too Early and Ride Losers Too Long: Theory and Evidence. The Journal of Finance, 40(3), pp. 777–790.

The Board of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (2025). Digital Engagement Practices (DEPs). [pdf] <https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD794.pdf>

Wang, L. and Lee, J. (2026). Gen Z Traders Go For Broke In Pursuit Of A New American Dream. Financial Advisor Magazine [online]. <https://www.fa-mag.com/news/gen-z-traders-go-for-broke-in-pursuit-of-a-new-american-dream-87435.html>