IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aif/journl/v4y2020i3p71-78.html

A Review of Overconfidence in Behavioral Finance

Author

Listed:
  • Ramon Joffre Alan Pires

Abstract

Behavioral finance can be dichotomized into limits to arbitrage and cognitive psychology. While limits to arbitrage describes when markets are inefficient, cognitive psychology refers to how people think. In this review we focus on one well-established bias of cognitive psychology, namely overconfidence. Throughout the literature there are three distinct ways in which overconfidence has been defined: (1) overestimation, (2) overplacement and (3) overprecision. We shortly summarize the ideas of conventional theory about overconfidence, and present the most significant findings of the relevant literature. Hereby we differentiate between studies that investigate overconfidence on the micro level (i.e. individual-level data) and the macro level (i.e. aggregated-level or market-level data). We will also discuss inconsistency across different measures of overconfidence and the reverse phenomena of overconfidence, i.e. underconfidence. To stay within the scope of this work we place our main focus on experimental studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Ramon Joffre Alan Pires, 2020. "A Review of Overconfidence in Behavioral Finance," International Journal of Science and Business, IJSAB International, vol. 4(3), pages 71-78.
    • Handle: RePEc:aif:journl:v:4:y:2020:i:3:p:71-78
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ijsab.com/wp-content/uploads/502.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ijsab.com/volume-4-issue-3/2949
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Kirchler, Erich & Maciejovsky, Boris, 2002. "Simultaneous Over- and Underconfidence: Evidence from Experimental Asset Markets," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 65-85, July.
    3. 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)

    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. Michailova, Julija, 2010. "Overconfidence and bubbles in experimental asset markets," MPRA Paper 26388, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Bregu, Klajdi, 2020. "Overconfidence and (Over)Trading: The Effect of Feedback on Trading Behavior," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    3. Michailova, Julija, 2010. "Development of the overconfidence measurement instrument for the economic experiment," MPRA Paper 34799, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Nov 2011.
    4. Soleman Alsabban & Omar Alarfaj, 2020. "An Empirical Analysis of Behavioral Finance in the Saudi Stock Market: Evidence of Overconfidence Behavior," International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Econjournals, vol. 10(1), pages 73-86.
    5. Chang, Xiaochen & Guo, Songlin & Huang, Junkai, 2022. "Kidnapped mutual funds: Irrational preference of naive investors and fund incentive distortion," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    6. Barberis, Nicholas & Xiong, Wei, 2012. "Realization utility," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 251-271.
    7. 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.
    8. Volker Thoma & Elliott White & Asha Panigrahi & Vanessa Strowger & Irina Anderson, 2015. "Good Thinking or Gut Feeling? Cognitive Reflection and Intuition in Traders, Bankers and Financial Non-Experts," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, April.
    9. 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.
    10. Dorota Skała, 2008. "Overconfidence in Psychology and Finance – an Interdisciplinary Literature Review," Bank i Kredyt, Narodowy Bank Polski, vol. 39(4), pages 33-50.
    11. Richards, Daniel W. & Willows, Gizelle D., 2018. "Who trades profusely? The characteristics of individual investors who trade frequently," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 1-11.
    12. Nguyen, Nhut H. & Truong, Cameron, 2013. "The information content of stock markets around the world: A cultural explanation," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 1-29.
    13. David Masclet & Emmanuel Peterle & Sophie Larribeau, 2012. "Gender Differences in Competitive and Non Competitive Environments: An Experimental Evidence," Economics Working Paper Archive (University of Rennes & University of Caen) 201236, Center for Research in Economics and Management (CREM), University of Rennes, University of Caen and CNRS.
    14. Chakravarty, Sugato & Ray, Rina, 2020. "On short-term institutional trading skill, behavioral biases, and liquidity need," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    15. Fung, Scott & Tsai, Shih-Chuan, 2021. "The price discovery role of day traders in futures market: Evidence from different types of day traders," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 53-77.
    16. Liao, Jingchi & Peng, Cameron & Zhu, Ning, 2021. "Extrapolative bubbles and trading volume," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 118887, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Marina Fiedler, 2011. "Symposium: Experience and Confidence in an Internet-Based Asset Market Experiment," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 78(1), pages 30-52, July.
    18. Bertrand Koebel & André Schmitt & Sandrine Spaeter, 2016. "DO SELF-THEORIES ON INTELLIGENCE EXPLAIN OVERCONFIDENCE AND RISK TAKING? A Field Experiment," Working Papers of BETA 2016-11, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    19. 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.
    20. Laudenbach, Christine & Loos, Benjamin & Pirschel, Jenny & Wohlfart, Johannes, 2021. "The trading response of individual investors to local bankruptcies," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(2), pages 928-953.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:aif:journl:v:4:y:2020:i:3:p:71-78. 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: Farjana Rahman (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.