IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-02311957.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Reaction to Public Information in Markets : How much does Ambiguity Matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Brice Corgnet

    (EM - EMLyon Business School)

  • Praveen Kujal
  • David Porter

Abstract

In this article, we experimentally study trader reaction to ambiguity when dividend information is revealed sequentially. Our results indicate that the role of ambiguity aversion in explaining financial anomalies is limited. Specifically, price changes are consistent with news revelation regarding the dividend, independent of subject experience and the degree of ambiguity. In addition, there is no under or overprice reactions to news. Regardless of experience, market reaction to news moves in line with fundamentals. We find no significant differences in the control versus ambiguity treatments regarding prices, price volatility and trading volume for experienced subjects.

Suggested Citation

  • Brice Corgnet & Praveen Kujal & David Porter, 2013. "Reaction to Public Information in Markets : How much does Ambiguity Matter?," Post-Print hal-02311957, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02311957
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kip Smith & John Dickhaut & Kevin McCabe & José V. Pardo, 2002. "Neuronal Substrates for Choice Under Ambiguity, Risk, Gains, and Losses," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(6), pages 711-718, June.
    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. Konstantinos Georgalos, 2019. "An experimental test of the predictive power of dynamic ambiguity models," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 59(1), pages 51-83, August.
    2. Kathleen Ngangoué, M., 2021. "Learning under ambiguity: An experiment in gradual information processing," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    3. Konstantinos Georgalos, 2016. "Dynamic decision making under ambiguity," Working Papers 112111041, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    4. Christoph Huber & Julia Rose, 2019. "Do individual attitudes towards imprecision survive in experimental asset markets?," Working Papers 2019-06, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    5. Jeleva, Meglena & Tallon, Jean-Marc, 2016. "Ambiguïté, comportements et marchés financiers," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 92(1-2), pages 351-383, Mars-Juin.
    6. Bousselmi, Wael & Sentis, Patrick & Willinger, Marc, 2019. "How do markets react to (un)expected fundamental value shocks? An experimental analysis," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 90-113.
    7. Corgnet, Brice & Hernán-González, Roberto & Kujal, Praveen, 2020. "On booms that never bust: Ambiguity in experimental asset markets with bubbles," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    8. Praveen Kujal & Owen Powell, 2017. "Bubbles in Experimental Asset Markets," Working Papers 17-01, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    9. John Griffin, 2015. "Risk Premia and Knightian Uncertainty in an Experimental Market Featuring a Long-Lived Asset," Fordham Economics Discussion Paper Series dp2015-01, Fordham University, Department of Economics.
    10. John Griffin, 2015. "Risk Premia and Knightian Uncertainty in an Experimental Market Featuring a Long-Lived Asset," Fordham Economics Discussion Paper Series dp2015-01er:dp2015-01, Fordham University, Department of Economics.
    11. Füllbrunn, Sascha & Rau, Holger A. & Weitzel, Utz, 2014. "Does ambiguity aversion survive in experimental asset markets?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PB), pages 810-826.
    12. Kangogo, Moses & Volkov, Vladimir, 2022. "Detecting signed spillovers in global financial markets: A Markov-switching approach," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    13. Othon M. Moreno & Yaroslav Rosokha, 2016. "Learning under compound risk vs. learning under ambiguity – an experiment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 137-162, December.
    14. Jaeyong An & P. R. Kumar & Le Xie, 2016. "Dynamic Modeling of Price Responsive Demand in Real-time Electricity Market: Empirical Analysis," Papers 1612.05021, arXiv.org.
    15. Charles N. Noussair & Steven Tucker, 2013. "Experimental Research On Asset Pricing," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 554-569, July.

    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. Chorvat, Terrence, 2006. "Taxing utility," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-16, February.
    2. Mercè Roca & Robin Hogarth & A. Maule, 2006. "Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 175-194, May.
    3. Attema, Arthur E. & l’Haridon, Olivier & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2019. "Measuring multivariate risk preferences in the health domain," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 15-24.
    4. Brañas Garza, Pablo & Espinosa Alejos, María Paz & Repollés Pro, María, 2010. "Time discounting (delta) and pain anticipation: Experimental evidence," DFAEII Working Papers 1988-088X, University of the Basque Country - Department of Foundations of Economic Analysis II.
    5. Chanel, Olivier & Chichilnisky, Graciela, 2013. "Valuing life: Experimental evidence using sensitivity to rare events," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 198-205.
    6. Prast, H.M., 2007. "The psychology and economics of attitudes in the Netherlands," Other publications TiSEM eb014910-35cd-44a4-986e-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    7. Peter Brooks & Simon Peters & Horst Zank, 2014. "Risk behavior for gain, loss, and mixed prospects," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 153-182, August.
    8. Moreira, Bruno & Matsushita, Raul & Da Silva, Sergio, 2010. "Risk seeking behavior of preschool children in a gambling task," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 794-801, October.
    9. Vernon L. Smith, 2003. "Constructivist and Ecological Rationality in Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(3), pages 465-508, June.
    10. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    11. Matthias Lang, 2017. "First-Order and Second-Order Ambiguity Aversion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(4), pages 1254-1269, April.
    12. Peter Wakker & Veronika Köbberling & Christiane Schwieren, 2007. "Prospect-theory’s Diminishing Sensitivity Versus Economics’ Intrinsic Utility of Money: How the Introduction of the Euro can be Used to Disentangle the Two Empirically," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 205-231, November.
    13. Joyce E Berg & John W Dickhaut & Thomas A Rietz, 2004. "Preference Reversals: The Impact of Truth-Revealing Incentives," Levine's Bibliography 122247000000000571, UCLA Department of Economics.
    14. Robin Chark & Soo Chew, 2015. "A neuroimaging study of preference for strategic uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 209-227, June.
    15. Venkatraman, Srinivasan & Aloysius, John A. & Davis, Fred D., 2006. "Multiple prospect framing and decision behavior: The mediational roles of perceived riskiness and perceived ambiguity," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 59-73, September.
    16. Jordi Grau-Moya & Pedro A Ortega & Daniel A Braun, 2016. "Decision-Making under Ambiguity Is Modulated by Visual Framing, but Not by Motor vs. Non-Motor Context. Experiments and an Information-Theoretic Ambiguity Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-21, April.
    17. Ronald Bosman & Arno Riedl, 2003. "Emotions and Economic Shocks in a First-Price Auction," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 03-056/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    18. Theresa Michl & Stefan Taing, 2010. "An Economic and Neuroscientific Comparison of Strategic Decision-making," Chapters, in: Angela A. Stanton & Mellani Day & Isabell M. Welpe (ed.), Neuroeconomics and the Firm, chapter 10, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Angelika Dimoka & Paul A. Pavlou & Fred D. Davis, 2011. "Research Commentary ---NeuroIS: The Potential of Cognitive Neuroscience for Information Systems Research," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 687-702, December.
    20. Khine Kyaw & Steen Thomsen & Sirimon Treepongkaruna, 2022. "Firms' potential for economic sustainability and firm value: The moderating role of blockholders," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 884-901, October.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • G10 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - General (includes Measurement and Data)
    • G12 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Asset Pricing; Trading Volume; Bond Interest Rates

    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:hal:journl:hal-02311957. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.