IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v95y2013icp186-196.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Before and after: The impact of a real bubble crash on investors’ trading behavior in the lab

Author

Listed:
  • Gong, Binglin
  • Lei, Vivian
  • Pan, Deng

Abstract

We report the results of an experiment designed to study whether or not having experienced booms and crashes in naturally occurring asset markets affects subjects’ trading behavior in the lab. Active investors in the Shanghai Stock Exchange were recruited to participate in either the Boom treatment, conducted in June 2007 after the Shanghai Stock Exchange had had a bull market for almost 2 years, or the Crash treatment, conducted in August 2008 after the SSE composite index had plummeted almost 60% from its high reached in October 2007. We find that, compared to those in the Crash treatment, subjects in the Boom treatment were much more active when participating in our experimental asset markets in that they tended to made bigger trades and preferred to hold more shares than cash. These behavioral differences cannot be explained by the overconfidence hypothesis.

Suggested Citation

  • Gong, Binglin & Lei, Vivian & Pan, Deng, 2013. "Before and after: The impact of a real bubble crash on investors’ trading behavior in the lab," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 186-196.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:95:y:2013:i:c:p:186-196
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2013.03.016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268113000619
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jebo.2013.03.016?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael S. Haigh & John A. List, 2005. "Do Professional Traders Exhibit Myopic Loss Aversion? An Experimental Analysis," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 60(1), pages 523-534, February.
    2. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    3. Ulrike Malmendier & Stefan Nagel, 2011. "Depression Babies: Do Macroeconomic Experiences Affect Risk Taking?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 126(1), pages 373-416.
    4. Jonathan E. Alevy & Michael S. Haigh & John A. List, 2007. "Information Cascades: Evidence from a Field Experiment with Financial Market Professionals," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 62(1), pages 151-180, February.
    5. John A. List & Michael S. Haigh, 2010. "Investment Under Uncertainty: Testing the Options Model with Professional Traders," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 92(4), pages 974-984, November.
    6. Brad M. Barber & Terrance Odean, 2000. "Trading Is Hazardous to Your Wealth: The Common Stock Investment Performance of Individual Investors," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 55(2), pages 773-806, April.
    7. Markus Glaser & Martin Weber, 2007. "Overconfidence and trading volume," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory, Springer;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 32(1), pages 1-36, June.
    8. Smith, Vernon L & Suchanek, Gerry L & Williams, Arlington W, 1988. "Bubbles, Crashes, and Endogenous Expectations in Experimental Spot Asset Markets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(5), pages 1119-1151, September.
    9. Meir Statman & Steven Thorley & Keith Vorkink, 2006. "Investor Overconfidence and Trading Volume," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 19(4), pages 1531-1565.
    10. Terrance Odean, 1999. "Do Investors Trade Too Much?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1279-1298, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wichary, Szymon & Allenbach, Monika & von Helversen, Bettina & Kaszás, Dániel & Sterna, Radosław & Hoelscher, Christoph & Andraszewicz, Sandra, 2023. "Skin conductance predicts earnings in a market bubble-and-crash scenario," OSF Preprints ybu8z, Center for Open Science.
    2. Binglin Gong & Deng Pan & Donghui Shi, 2017. "New Investors and Bubbles: An Analysis of the Baosteel Call Warrant Bubble," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(8), pages 2493-2508, August.
    3. Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler & Thomas Stöckl, 2016. "The influence of investment experience on market prices: laboratory evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(2), pages 394-411, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christoph Huber & Christian König-Kersting, 2022. "Experimenting with Financial Professionals," Working Papers 2022-07, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    2. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    3. Michailova, Julija, 2010. "Overconfidence, Risk Aversion and Individual Financial Decisions in Experimental Asset Markets," MPRA Paper 53114, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Jan 2014.
    4. Phan, Thuy Chung & Rieger, Marc Oliver & Wang, Mei, 2018. "What leads to overtrading and under-diversification? Survey evidence from retail investors in an emerging market," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 39-55.
    5. Kazi Iqbal & Asad Islam & John List & Vy Nguyen, 2021. "Myopic Loss Aversion and Investment Decisions: From the Laboratory to the Field," Framed Field Experiments 000730, The Field Experiments Website.
    6. Kenneth Yung & Yen-Chih Liu, 2009. "Implications of futures trading volume: Hedgers versus speculators," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(5), pages 318-337, December.
    7. Marco Angrisani & Marco Cipriani & Antonio Guarino, 2022. "Strategic Sophistication and Trading Profits: An Experiment with Professional Traders," Staff Reports 1044, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
    8. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2016. "Field Experiments in Markets," Artefactual Field Experiments j0002, The Field Experiments Website.
    9. K.S. Muehlfeld & G.U. Weitzel & A. van Witteloostuijn, 2012. "Fight or freeze? Individual differences in investors’ motivational systems and trading in experimental asset markets," Working Papers 12-18, Utrecht School of Economics.
    10. Brian Albrecht & Omar Al-Ubaydli & Peter Boettke, 2022. "Testing the Hayek hypothesis: Recent theoretical and experimental evidence," Artefactual Field Experiments 00759, The Field Experiments Website.
    11. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    12. Oliver Gloede & Lukas Menkhoff, 2014. "Financial Professionals' Overconfidence: Is It Experience, Function, or Attitude?," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 20(2), pages 236-269, March.
    13. Helen X. H. Bao & Steven Haotong Li, 2016. "Overconfidence And Real Estate Research: A Survey Of The Literature," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 61(04), pages 1-24, September.
    14. Farjam, Mike & Kirchkamp, Oliver, 2018. "Bubbles in hybrid markets: How expectations about algorithmic trading affect human trading," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 248-269.
    15. Markus Glaser & Martin Weber, 2007. "Overconfidence and trading volume," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory, Springer;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 32(1), pages 1-36, June.
    16. Glaser, Markus & Weber, Martin, 2009. "Which past returns affect trading volume?," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 1-31, February.
    17. Zhang, Xiaotao & Liang, Junpeng & He, Feng, 2019. "Private information advantage or overconfidence? Performance of intraday arbitrage speculators in the Chinese stock market," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    18. Al-Ubaydli, Omar & Boettke, Peter, 2010. "Markets as economizers of information: Field experimental examination of the “Hayek Hypothesis”," MPRA Paper 27660, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Merkle, Christoph, 2018. "The curious case of negative volatility," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 92-108.
    20. Margarida Abreu, 2017. "How Biased is the Behavior of the Individual Investor in Warrants?," Working Papers REM 2017/07, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, REM, Universidade de Lisboa.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Experiment; Asset market; Experience;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • G01 - Financial Economics - - General - - - Financial Crises
    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:95:y:2013:i:c:p:186-196. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.