行为偏差和投资者行为:预测随机游走的下一步(重访)

Elena Asparouhova, M. Lemmon, M. Hertzel
{"title":"行为偏差和投资者行为:预测随机游走的下一步(重访)","authors":"Elena Asparouhova, M. Lemmon, M. Hertzel","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.597942","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A recent paper by Bloomfield and Hales (2002) reports results of laboratory experiments with MBA-student participants that support the existence of regime-shifting beliefs of the type theorized by Barberis, Shleifer, and Vishny (1998). Specifically, they find a strong tendency for subjects to expect reversals in performance after seeing historical sequences with many reversals and to expect trending after seeing historical sequences with fewer reversals. We argue that the Bloomfield and Hales experiment does not provide a useful test of BSV because the set of sequences shown to subjects are not from a random walk process, but instead are more consistent with what would be expected if the true underlying process was of a regime-shifting type. A simple chi-square goodness of fit test based on the frequency of reversals strongly rejects that the set of sequences used in the experiment were generated by a random walk process. Furthermore, consistent with an underlying regime shifting process, the Bloomfield and Hales sequences have far too many observations in the tails of the distribution of reversal rates. We contend that because of the particular set of performance sequences used, the Bloomfield and Hales experiment cannot distinguish whether subjects rationally conclude that the underlying process is of a regime-shifting type or whether the subjects' belief in regime-shifting arises from behavioral biases as suggested by BSV. When we modify the Bloomfield and Hales experiment to be consistent with the crucial BSV assumption that the underlying data-generating process is random, we find no evidence supportive of investor belief in regime-shifting. Subjects in our experiment are more likely to expect a reversal in performance, rather than trending, after observing sequences with fewer reversals. This finding is consistent with the well-documented gambler's fallacy effect, which is a form of representativeness bias that arises when individuals know the underlying return-generating process.","PeriodicalId":275866,"journal":{"name":"HKUST Business School Research Paper Series","volume":"106 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Behavioral Biases and Investor Behavior: Predicting the Next Step of a Random Walk (Revisited)\",\"authors\":\"Elena Asparouhova, M. Lemmon, M. Hertzel\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.597942\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A recent paper by Bloomfield and Hales (2002) reports results of laboratory experiments with MBA-student participants that support the existence of regime-shifting beliefs of the type theorized by Barberis, Shleifer, and Vishny (1998). Specifically, they find a strong tendency for subjects to expect reversals in performance after seeing historical sequences with many reversals and to expect trending after seeing historical sequences with fewer reversals. We argue that the Bloomfield and Hales experiment does not provide a useful test of BSV because the set of sequences shown to subjects are not from a random walk process, but instead are more consistent with what would be expected if the true underlying process was of a regime-shifting type. A simple chi-square goodness of fit test based on the frequency of reversals strongly rejects that the set of sequences used in the experiment were generated by a random walk process. Furthermore, consistent with an underlying regime shifting process, the Bloomfield and Hales sequences have far too many observations in the tails of the distribution of reversal rates. We contend that because of the particular set of performance sequences used, the Bloomfield and Hales experiment cannot distinguish whether subjects rationally conclude that the underlying process is of a regime-shifting type or whether the subjects' belief in regime-shifting arises from behavioral biases as suggested by BSV. When we modify the Bloomfield and Hales experiment to be consistent with the crucial BSV assumption that the underlying data-generating process is random, we find no evidence supportive of investor belief in regime-shifting. Subjects in our experiment are more likely to expect a reversal in performance, rather than trending, after observing sequences with fewer reversals. This finding is consistent with the well-documented gambler's fallacy effect, which is a form of representativeness bias that arises when individuals know the underlying return-generating process.\",\"PeriodicalId\":275866,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"HKUST Business School Research Paper Series\",\"volume\":\"106 1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"HKUST Business School Research Paper Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.597942\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HKUST Business School Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.597942","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

Bloomfield和Hales(2002)最近发表的一篇论文报告了以mba学生为参与者的实验室实验结果,这些实验支持了Barberis、Shleifer和Vishny(1998)提出的这种类型的政权转移信念的存在。具体来说,他们发现,受试者在看到有很多逆转的历史序列后,预期业绩会出现逆转,而在看到逆转较少的历史序列后,预期趋势会有很强的倾向。我们认为,Bloomfield和Hales的实验并没有提供一个有用的BSV测试,因为展示给受试者的序列集不是来自随机游走过程,而是更符合如果真正的潜在过程是一个政体转移类型的预期。基于反转频率的简单卡方拟合优度检验强烈拒绝实验中使用的序列集是由随机漫步过程生成的。此外,与潜在的状态转移过程相一致,Bloomfield和Hales序列在反转率分布的尾部有太多的观测值。我们认为,由于所使用的特定行为序列,Bloomfield和Hales实验无法区分受试者是否理性地得出潜在过程是一种制度转移类型的结论,还是受试者对制度转移的信念源于BSV所暗示的行为偏见。当我们修改Bloomfield和Hales的实验,使其与关键的BSV假设——潜在的数据生成过程是随机的——相一致时,我们发现没有证据支持投资者相信政权转移。在我们的实验中,受试者在观察到逆转次数较少的序列后,更有可能期待表现的逆转,而不是趋势。这一发现与赌徒谬误效应一致,赌徒谬误效应是一种代表性偏差,当个人知道潜在的回报产生过程时就会出现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Behavioral Biases and Investor Behavior: Predicting the Next Step of a Random Walk (Revisited)
A recent paper by Bloomfield and Hales (2002) reports results of laboratory experiments with MBA-student participants that support the existence of regime-shifting beliefs of the type theorized by Barberis, Shleifer, and Vishny (1998). Specifically, they find a strong tendency for subjects to expect reversals in performance after seeing historical sequences with many reversals and to expect trending after seeing historical sequences with fewer reversals. We argue that the Bloomfield and Hales experiment does not provide a useful test of BSV because the set of sequences shown to subjects are not from a random walk process, but instead are more consistent with what would be expected if the true underlying process was of a regime-shifting type. A simple chi-square goodness of fit test based on the frequency of reversals strongly rejects that the set of sequences used in the experiment were generated by a random walk process. Furthermore, consistent with an underlying regime shifting process, the Bloomfield and Hales sequences have far too many observations in the tails of the distribution of reversal rates. We contend that because of the particular set of performance sequences used, the Bloomfield and Hales experiment cannot distinguish whether subjects rationally conclude that the underlying process is of a regime-shifting type or whether the subjects' belief in regime-shifting arises from behavioral biases as suggested by BSV. When we modify the Bloomfield and Hales experiment to be consistent with the crucial BSV assumption that the underlying data-generating process is random, we find no evidence supportive of investor belief in regime-shifting. Subjects in our experiment are more likely to expect a reversal in performance, rather than trending, after observing sequences with fewer reversals. This finding is consistent with the well-documented gambler's fallacy effect, which is a form of representativeness bias that arises when individuals know the underlying return-generating process.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信