IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jjrfmx/v17y2024i11p479-d1505263.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Market Volatility vs. Economic Growth: The Role of Cognitive Bias

Author

Listed:
  • Neha Parashar

    (Symbiosis School of Banking and Finance, Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune 412115, India)

  • Rahul Sharma

    (School of Business, Skyline University College, Sharjah P.O. Box 1797, United Arab Emirates)

  • S. Sandhya

    (IBS Hyderabad, ICFAI Foundation for Higher Education, Hyderabad 501203, India)

  • Apoorva Joshi

    (Symbiosis School of Banking and Finance, Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune 412115, India)

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the interaction between market volatility, economic growth, and cognitive biases over the period from April 2006 to March 2024. Market volatility and economic growth are critical indicators that influence economic stability and investment behavior. Financial market volatility, defined by abrupt and erratic changes in asset values, can have a big impact on the expansion and stability of the economy. According to conventional economic theory, there should be an inverse relationship between market volatility and economic growth since high volatility can discourage investment and erode trust. Market participants’ cognitive biases are a major aspect that complicates this connection. Due to our innate susceptibility to cognitive biases, including herd mentality, overconfidence, and loss aversion, humans can make poor decisions and increase market volatility. These prejudices frequently cause investors to behave erratically and irrationally, departing from reasonable expectations and causing inefficiencies in the market. Cognitive biases have the capacity to sustain feedback loops, which heighten market turbulence and may hinder economic expansion. Similarly, cognitive biases have the potential to cause investors to misread economic indicators or ignore important details, which would increase volatility. This study uses the generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (GARCH) model on GDP growth data from the US, the UK, and India, alongside S&P 500, FTSE 100, and NIFTY 50 data sourced from Bloomberg, to examine evidence of these biases. The results show evidence of the predictive nature of market fluctuations on economic performance across the markets and highlight the substantial effects of cognitive biases on market volatility, disregarding economic fundamentals and growth, emphasizing the necessity of considering psychological factors in financial market analyses and developing strategies to mitigate their adverse effects.

Suggested Citation

  • Neha Parashar & Rahul Sharma & S. Sandhya & Apoorva Joshi, 2024. "Market Volatility vs. Economic Growth: The Role of Cognitive Bias," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-16, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:17:y:2024:i:11:p:479-:d:1505263
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/17/11/479/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/17/11/479/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Manika Sharma & Mohammad Firoz, 2020. "Do Investors¡¯ Exhibit Cognitive Biases: Evidence From Indian Equity Market," International Journal of Financial Research, International Journal of Financial Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 11(2), pages 26-39, April.
    2. McFadden, Brandon R. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2015. "Cognitive biases in the assimilation of scientific information on global warming and genetically modified food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 35-43.
    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. Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Cranfield, John & Chen, Chen & Widowski, Tina, 2021. "Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Sean F. Ellis & Maik Kecinski & Kent D. Messer & Clive Lipchin, 2022. "Consumer perceptions after long‐term use of alternative irrigation water: A field experiment in Israel," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(2), pages 1003-1020, June.
    3. Onozaka, Yuko & Saue, Vegar Veseth & Costanigro, Marco, "undated". "The Moderating Effect of Heterogeneous Beliefs on Consumer Preferences for a New Food Technology: The Case of Modified Atmospheric Packaging," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274068, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Götz, Linde & Svanidze, Miranda & Tissier, Alain & Brand Duran, Alejandro, 2022. "Consumers’ willingness to Buy CRISPR gene-edited tomatoes: Evidence from a choice experiment case study in Germany," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 14(2).
    5. Trey Malone & F. Bailey Norwood, 2020. "Gluten aversion is not limited to the political left," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(1), pages 1-15, March.
    6. Weizhuo Wang & Christopher Gan & Dao Trang Anh & Quang Thi Thieu Nguyen, 2024. "The decision to buy genetically modified foods in China: what makes the difference?," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(6), pages 15213-15235, June.
    7. Hu, Yang & House, Lisa A. & Gao, Zhifeng, 2022. "How do consumers respond to labels for crispr (gene-editing)?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    8. Costanigro, Marco & Scozzafava, Gabriele & Casini, Leonardo, 2017. "Vertical Differentiation, Perceptions Restructuring, And Wine Choices: The Case Of The Gran Selezione In Chianti Wines," Working Papers 253850, American Association of Wine Economists.
    9. Ying (Jessica) Cao & David R. Just & Calum Turvey & Brian Wansink, 2015. "Existing Food Habits and Recent Choices Lead to Disregard of Food Safety Announcements," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 63(4), pages 491-511, December.
    10. Wensing, Joana & Caputo, Vincenzina & Carraresi, Laura & Bröring, Stefanie, 2020. "The effects of green nudges on consumer valuation of bio-based plastic packaging," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    11. McFadden, Jonathan R. & Huffman, Wallace E., 2017. "Consumer valuation of information about food safety achieved using biotechnology: Evidence from new potato products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 82-96.
    12. Martin Browning & Lars Gårn Hansen & Sinne Smed, 2019. "Heterogeneous Consumer Reactions to Health News," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 101(2), pages 579-599.
    13. Shalynn Sumrow & Darren Hudson & Oscar Sarasty & Carlos Carpio & Christy Bratcher, 2024. "Consumer preferences for worker and supply chain risk mitigation in the beef supply chain in response to COVID‐19 pandemic," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(1), pages 299-315, January.
    14. McFadden, Brandon & Lusk, Jayson, 2016. "What Consumers Don’t Know about GM Food," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235325, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Huffman Wallace & McCluskey Jill, 2017. "Food Labels, Information, and Trade in GMOs," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 15(1), pages 1-9, January.
    16. David Zilberman & Tim G. Holland & Itai Trilnick, 2018. "Agricultural GMOs—What We Know and Where Scientists Disagree," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-19, May.
    17. repec:ags:aaea22:335584 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Lusk, Jayson L. & McFadden, Brandon R. & Wilson, Norbert, 2018. "Do consumers care how a genetically engineered food was created or who created it?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 81-90.
    19. Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs, 2020. "The Power of Stories: Narratives and Information Framing Effects in Science Communication," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(4), pages 1271-1296, August.
    20. Brandon R. McFadden & Brittany N. Anderton & Kelly A. Davidson & John C. Bernard, 2021. "The effect of scientific information and narrative on preferences for possible gene‐edited solutions for citrus greening," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(4), pages 1595-1620, December.
    21. Ivy Caixia Gan & Denise Maria Conroy, 2024. "Control or Losing Control: Consumer Perceptions of Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) Based on Focus Group Findings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-15, June.

    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:gam:jjrfmx:v:17:y:2024:i:11:p:479-:d:1505263. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.