Search results

The purpose of this second of two companion papers is to further review the insights provided by experimental studies examining financial decisions and market behavior.

Focus is directed on those studies examining explicitly, or with direct implications for, the most robustly identified phenomena or stylized facts observed in behavioral finance. The themes for this second paper are biases, moods and emotions.

Experiments complement the findings from empirical studies in behavioral finance by avoiding some of the limitations or assumptions implicit in such studies.

The author synthesizes the valuable contribution made by experimental studies in extending the knowledge of how biases, moods and emotions influence the financial behavior of individuals, highlighting the role of experimental studies in policy design and intervention.

Expectations play a crucial role in finance, macroeconomics, monetary economics, and fiscal policy. In the last decade a rapidly increasing number of laboratory experiments have been performed to study individual expectation formation, the interactions of individual forecasting rules, and the aggregate macro behavior they co-create. The aim of this article is to provide a comprehensive literature survey on laboratory experiments on expectations in macroeconomics and finance. In particular, we discuss the extent to which expectations are rational or may be described by simple forecasting heuristics, at the individual as well as the aggregate level.

Mediating effects are often tested using hierarchical multiple regression (HMR) procedures. Typical of the HMR-based strategies is the very frequently cited and widely used procedure described by Baron and Kenny (1986). Unfortunately, there are several important problems with it. More specifically, as we demonstrate below, it: (a) is of virtually no value for buttressing claims of mediating effects for data from non-experimental research; (b) produces erroneous inferences about the existence of mediating effects for misspecified mediation models; and (c) is incapable of providing credible evidence of such effects in a large proportion of cases, even for properly specified mediation models. We detail a number of important implications of our analyses.

The purpose of this paper, and a companion paper (Duxbury, 2015), is to review the insights provided by experimental studies examining financial decisions and market behavior.

Focus is directed on those studies examining explicitly, or with direct implications for, the most robustly identified phenomena or stylized facts observed in behavioral finance. The themes for this first paper are theory and financial markets.

Experiments complement the findings from empirical studies in behavioral finance by avoiding some of the limitations or assumptions implicit in such studies.

The authors synthesize the valuable contribution made by experimental studies in extending the knowledge of the functioning of financial markets and the financial behavior of individuals.

It is arguable that the central questions requiring explanation by the behavioural and social sciences are those falling under the rubric “nature vs. nurture”. To be sure, the issue is oversimplified when stated so simply; there are both physiological and environmental elements in the causation of behaviour, as well as feedback through which each alters the other. Moreover, discussions of this dichotomy can often be seen to be sterile arguments about definition, rather than answers to the empirical question of what is, in fact, happening. What matters is not “nature” or “nurture” in the abstract, but the roles physiology, environment, and the interaction of the two play in generating specific behaviour.

Behavioral economics poses a challenge for the welfare evaluation of choices, particularly those that involve risk. It demands that we recognize that the descriptive account of behavior toward those choices might not be the ones we were all taught, and still teach, and that subjective risk perceptions might not accord with expert assessments of probabilities. In addition to these challenges, we are faced with the need to jettison naive notions of revealed preferences, according to which every choice by a subject expresses her objective function, as behavioral evidence forces us to confront pervasive inconsistencies and noise in a typical individual’s choice data. A principled account of errant choice must be built into models used for identification and estimation. These challenges demand close attention to the methodological claims often used to justify policy interventions. They also require, we argue, closer attention by economists to relevant contributions from cognitive science. We propose that a quantitative application of the “intentional stance” of Dennett provides a coherent, attractive and general approach to behavioral welfare economics.

We review the existing laboratory experimental studies on corruption that have generated results with clear policy implications. We present and discuss experimental findings on the role that both monetary incentives and nonmonetary motivations may play in corruption decision-making, and, hence, in the fight against corruption.

This study aims to examine the extent to which “What Works” reviews in youth justice enable understanding of the features of effectiveness (what works, for whom, in what circumstances and why?) specified in the Effects–Mechanisms–Moderators–Implementation–Economic cost (EMMIE) framework.

The EMMIE framework examined findings within a sample of “What Works” style reviews of preventative youth justice intervention effectiveness.

“What Works” style reviews of evaluations of preventative youth justice interventions often omit the requisite details required to examine all of the necessary elements of effectiveness contained within the EMMIE framework. While effectiveness measures were typically provided, the dominant evaluation evidence-base struggles to consider moderators of effect, mechanisms of change, implementation differences and cost-effectiveness. Therefore, “What Works” samples cannot facilitate sufficient understanding of “what works for whom, in what circumstances and why?”. The authors argue that Realist Synthesis can fill this gap and shed light on the contexts that shape the mechanisms through which youth justice interventions work.

The authors extended the approach adopted by an earlier review of effectiveness reviews (Tompson et al., 2020), considering more recent reviews of the effectiveness of preventative interventions using the EMMIE framework. Unlike previous reviews, the authors prioritised the utility of the EMMIE framework for assessing the factors affecting the effectiveness of preventative interventions in youth justice.

This paper aims to test whether a structured application of persuasion principles might help improve advertising decisions. Evidence-based principles are currently used to improve decisions in other complex situations, such as those faced in engineering and medicine.

Scores were calculated from the ratings of 17 self-trained novices who rated 96 matched pairs of print advertisements for adherence to evidence-based persuasion principles. Predictions from traditional methods – 10,809 unaided judgments from novices and 2,764 judgments from people with some expertise in advertising and 288 copy-testing predictions – provided benchmarks.

A higher adherence-to-principles-score correctly predicted the more effective advertisement for 75 per cent of the pairs. Copy testing was correct for 59 per cent, and expert judgment was correct for 55 per cent. Guessing would provide 50 per cent accurate predictions. Combining judgmental predictions led to substantial improvements in accuracy.

Advertisements for high-involvement utilitarian products were tested on the assumption that persuasion principles would be more effective for such products. The measure of effectiveness that was available –day-after-recall – is a proxy for persuasion or behavioral measures.

Pretesting advertisements by assessing adherence to evidence-based persuasion principles in a structured way helps in deciding which advertisements would be best to run. That procedure also identifies how to make an advertisement more effective.

This is the first study in marketing, and in advertising specifically, to test the predictive validity of evidence-based principles. In addition, the study provides the first test of the predictive validity of the index method for a marketing problem.

The study endeavours to determine (1) whether the disposition effect exists among South African investor teams, (2) whether it is causally intensified by a set of psychosocial factors and (3) whether the disposition effect causally reduces investor welfare.

Following a natural field experimentation design involving a sample of investor teams participating in the 2019 run of the JSE University Investment Challenge, the authors use regression adjustments as well as bootstrap tests to investigate the casual implications of a set of psychosocial factors on the intensity of the disposition effect, as well on the attenuation of market-adjusted ex post returns (i.e. investor welfare).

South African investor teams are susceptible to the disposition effect, and their susceptibility to the bias is associated with attenuated investor welfare. Furthermore, low female representation in an investor team causally intensifies the disposition effect, subsequently leading to a causal reduction in investor welfare.

Using evidence from real-world observation, the authors contribute to the literature on team gender diversity and investment decision-making, and – using Hofstede's (2001) cultural dimensions – the authors offer a comprehensive account for how differences in culture may lead to differences in gender-related disposition effects across different nationalities. The authors also introduce to the literature experimental evidence from the field that clearly demonstrates that – among South African investor teams – a causal relationship exists (1) between female representation and the disposition effect, and (2) between the disposition effect and investor welfare.