IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ismwps/299598.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Einflüsse von kognitiven Verzerrungen auf das Anlageverhalten deutscher Privataktionäre

Author

Listed:
  • Hampe, Lena
  • Rommel, Kai

Abstract

This scientific working paper explains the influence of four selected cognitive biases regarding the investment behaviour of German private shareholders. In detail, it contains a theoretical treatment, as well as an empirical impact study of these four biases. Starting with the definition of cognitive biases in chapter 2, the term "German private shareholders" will be defined afterwards. Then the relevance of psychology in the stock exchange and the consumer behaviour from the behavioural finance perspective is analysed. The theories regarding the capital market prices developed by Fama, Hansen and Shiller give different perspectives towards the need of psychology in the stock exchange. Taking account of the different approaches, a model is developed to illustrate investment behaviour of private shareholders which is influenced not only by cognitive biases and social-psychological effects but also by rational behaviour. The subsequent experiment was executed on a diversified composition of six private shareholders and investigated the following four biases: anchoring effect, dilution effect which describes the influence of non-relevant information, framing effect which is the different valuation of two terms, and the disposition effect. This is measured by the influence of acquisition prices on the sell decision. For this purpose, an experiment with simulated situations of the stock exchange was developed. The subjects of the experiment had several response options that resulted in either rational, bounded rational, or irrational behaviour. The results of the theoretical part and of the experiment can refute an entire rationality of the stock exchange and the investment behaviour because every subject was influenced by at least one cognitive bias. Therefore, the experiment determined an influence of cognitive biases, although the strength and quantity varied individually. Besides, no correlation between the cognitive biases was determined, but it can be inferred from the experiment that the higher the willingness to assume the risk and the experience on the stock exchange market, the more rational investment behaviour will be. The results of this experiment give a first insight on how cognitive biases might affect rational behaviour on stock markets and how the theory of bounded rationality can explain these biases.

Suggested Citation

  • Hampe, Lena & Rommel, Kai, 2017. "Einflüsse von kognitiven Verzerrungen auf das Anlageverhalten deutscher Privataktionäre," ISM Working Papers 7, International School of Management (ISM), Dortmund.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ismwps:299598
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/299598/1/ism-wp07.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roßbach, Peter, 2001. "Behavioral finance: eine Alternative zur vorherrschenden Kapitalmarkttheorie?," Frankfurt School - Working Paper Series 31, Frankfurt School of Finance and Management.
    2. Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 15-25, 01-02.
    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. Lauren Skinner Beitelspacher & Thomas L. Baker & Adam Rapp & Dhruv Grewal, 2018. "Understanding the long-term implications of retailer returns in business-to-business relationships," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 252-272, March.
    2. Mengyuan Zhou, 2022. "Does the Source of Inheritance Matter in Bequest Attitudes? Evidence from Japan," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 867-887, December.
    3. Bożena Baczewska & Bogusław Block & Mariola Janiszewska & Krzysztof Leśniewski & Agnieszka Zwolak, 2022. "Assessment of Mood and Hope in Critically-Ill Patients as a Basis for the Improvement for the Palliative and Hospice Care," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-10, August.
    4. David R. Bell & Jeongwen Chiang & V. Padmanabhan, 1999. "The Decomposition of Promotional Response: An Empirical Generalization," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 504-526.
    5. Martín Egozcue & Sébastien Massoni & Wing-Keung Wong & RiÄ ardas Zitikis, 2012. "Integration-segregation decisions under general value functions: "Create your own bundle — choose 1, 2, or all 3!"," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 12057, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    6. Tal Gross & Timothy J. Layton & Daniel Prinz, 2022. "The Liquidity Sensitivity of Healthcare Consumption: Evidence from Social Security Payments," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 175-190, June.
    7. Matthew G. Nagler, 2016. "Equilibrium with Consumer Adjustment to Choice," Working Papers 10, City University of New York Graduate Center, Ph.D. Program in Economics.
    8. De los Santos, Babur & Kim, In Kyung & Lubensky, Dmitry, 2018. "Do MSRPs decrease prices?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 429-457.
      • Babur De los Santos & In Kyung Kim & Dmitry Lubensky, 2013. "Do MSRPs Decrease Prices?," Working Papers 2013-13, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy.
    9. Liu, Zhiqiang & Yan, Miao & Fan, Youqing & Chen, Liling, 2021. "Ascribed or achieved? The role of birth order on innovative behaviour in the workplace," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 480-492.
    10. Kim, Joonkyung & Zhao, Min & Soman, Dilip, 2023. "Converging vs diverging: The effect of visual representation of goal structure on financial decisions," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 362-377.
    11. Kristien Werck & Bruno Heyndels & Benny Geys, 2008. "The impact of ‘central places’ on spatial spending patterns: evidence from Flemish local government cultural expenditures," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 32(1), pages 35-58, March.
    12. Johannes Abeler & Felix Marklein, 2017. "Fungibility, Labels, and Consumption," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 99-127.
    13. Mengyuan Zhou, 2019. "The Effect of the Source of Inheritance on Bequest Attitudes: Evidence from Japan," Keio-IES Discussion Paper Series 2019-018, Institute for Economics Studies, Keio University.
    14. Ek, Claes, 2017. "Some causes are more equal than others? The effect of similarity on substitution in charitable giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 45-62.
    15. James K. Hammitt, 2020. "Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 129-154, October.
    16. Justin S. Skillman & Michael J. Vernarelli, 2016. "Framing effects on bidding behavior in experimental first-price sealed-bid money auctions," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(4), pages 391-400, July.
    17. Karle, Heiko & Schumacher, Heiner & Vølund, Rune, 2023. "Consumer loss aversion and scale-dependent psychological switching costs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 214-237.
    18. Miguel Godinho de Matos & Pedro Ferreira, 2020. "The Effect of Binge-Watching on the Subscription of Video on Demand: Results from Randomized Experiments," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 1337-1360, December.
    19. Duncan Luce, R., 1997. "Associative joint receipts," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 51-74, August.
    20. Yizhao Jiang, 2022. "The Influence of Payment Method: Do Consumers Pay More with Mobile Payment?," Papers 2210.14631, arXiv.org.

    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:zbw:ismwps:299598. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ismdode.html .

    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.