An exploratory experimental analysis of path-dependent investment behaviors
Introduction
First documented by Shefrin and Statman (1985), the disposition effect (hereafter ‘DE’), which is the tendency to sell winners more readily than losers, has been studied extensively. Odean (1998) used brokerage data to study the effect among US investors, and established the conventional detection methodology. Evidence of DE in other countries has also been documented, as well as in experimental settings.1 Its heterogeneity has been documented: while DE behavior does appear to be modal, some individuals exhibit no such effect, or the opposite (loser-selling and/or winner-holding) effect, which we designate as ‘negDE’ (e.g., Dhar and Zhu (2006)).2 Heterogeneity also exists: sometimes gains that are sold drive the effect, while other times losses that are held drive the effect, leading Weber and Welfens (2008) to suggest that DE is not a single effect, but rather two distinct effects driven by stable personality traits.
DE is only one form of path-dependent behavior. In the investment realm, wealth effects, defined as changes in risk taking induced by increases or decreases in wealth, have been documented.3 After wealth increases the preponderance of the evidence suggests that typical behavior is to increase risk (e.g., Post, Van den Assem, Baltussen and Thaler (2008)), in the manner of the house money effect (‘HM’).4 Nevertheless, sometimes the opposite behavior (‘negHM’) is witnessed (e.g., Weber and Zuchel (2005)). More ambiguously, after wealth decreases, while risk taking commonly increases (e.g., Coval and Shumway (2005)), a behavior which can be called the breakeven effect (‘BE’), the opposite risk-reducing behavior (‘negBE’) is also quite commonly seen (e.g., Massa and Simonov (2005)).5 Imas (2016) has recently shown that realization or non-realization of losses is crucial: after paper losses risk taking frequently rises, while after realized losses risk taking usually falls. As for the relative strength of wealth effects, Weber and Zuchel (2005) have run experiments demonstrating that BE is stronger than HM in an investment portfolio environment, but the opposite holds in a lottery environment.
Using an experiment allowing subjects to trade two risky securities and a risk-free asset, where the setting has been designed to cleanly decompose the afore-mentioned path-dependent behaviors (i.e., DE, HM and BE, and their negative counterparts), we extend research into such behaviors in several ways. First, we explore whether path-dependent behaviors are related, in the sense that the tendency to exhibit one implies a greater (or reduced) likelihood of exhibiting another. If so, this may be the result of the typical structure of risk preferences, or common psychological and demographic factors may be at work. Second, along these lines, we investigate the impact of psychological determinants via a questionnaire filled out by experimental subjects. For example, past research has shown that overconfidence leads to excessive trading (e.g., Glaser and Weber (2007)) and overly aggressive corporate policy (e.g., Malmendier and Tate (2008)), while unbalanced emotion has been linked to weak trading performance (e.g., Lo, Repin and Steenbarger (2005)) and mass mood swing-induced market moves (e.g., Hirshleifer and Shumway (2003)). Might overconfidence and emotion also mediate path-dependent behaviors? Third, we study whether path-dependent behavior differs by gender. Previous research has shown that females tend to be more risk-averse than males (e.g., Barsky, Juster, Kimball and Shapiro (1997)), and they trade less (e.g., Barber and Odean (2001)). Such differences in behavior are likely to be driven by differences in typical personality rather than gender per se. For example, in the case of excessive trading, it has been shown that males are more overconfident than females, which can explain the difference in trading activity. Root causes aside, given the recent interest in the relationship between gender and efficient outcomes (e.g., Eckel and Füllbrunn (2015)), it is certainly useful to establish the stylized facts pertaining to the relationship between gender and path-dependent behaviors.
We believe that this research is useful both for theoretical and practical reasons. First, expanding the study of path-dependent investment behaviors to experimental settings with multiple risky assets allows theoreticians to better understand path-dependent tendencies in formulating asset pricing models which seek to explain puzzling phenomena. For example, in Barberis, Huang, and Santos (2001), investors receive utility not only from consumption but also from changes in wealth.6 And Grinblatt and Han (2005) account for momentum through the tendency of some investors to exhibit DE behavior. Second, a greater understanding of operative mechanisms may lead to more effective interventions. Two examples are nudges and training. If an advisor intuits that an investor might be prone to display wealth effects, a discussion of the benefits of “staying the course” prior to significant market movements, or perhaps even recommending an auto-pilot approach such as target-date funds, might be beneficial.
To preview our findings, compelling evidence is presented on two of these three fronts. First, DE and BE are positively correlated, while both are negatively correlated with HM. This is consistent with prospect-theory preferences dominated by utility function curvature (rather than loss aversion). Second, perhaps because our psychometric measures are likely noisy we produce only weak evidence that overconfidence and negative emotion mediate path-dependent behaviors. Third, path-dependent behaviors are generally influenced by gender. In the case of DE and negDE, the inference is that males are more likely to adjust their positions (in either direction) in response to changes in relative prices.
In Section 2, we briefly review the relevant literature on the simultaneous consideration of path-dependent behaviors and the role of psychological tendencies and gender, as well as setting out the hypotheses tested. In the next section, the experimental design is outlined. Section 4 explains how we develop measures for path-dependent behaviors. In section 5, our questionnaire is described. In the penultimate section, the experimental results are laid out and discussed, and several robustness checks are conducted. Finally, Section 7 concludes.
Section snippets
Antecedent research
There have been two notable antecedents to our research in jointly considering DE and wealth effects. Both use naturally-occurring data. Calvet, Campbell, and Sodini (2009) use data from Swedish households, investigating behavior both at the portfolio level and at the individual-stock level. They document that households tend to take greater risk in their portfolios as they become richer (HM behavior), while at the individual-stock level households are more likely to sell stocks that have
Experimental design
A total of 100 undergraduate business students at a Canadian university participated. They were compensated according to their performance immediately upon completion of the experimental task.
Measuring path-dependent behaviors
As stated above, the meaningful choice for experimental subjects occurs at t = 1 when they allocate their funds ($3000 under Case A, $2700 under Case B, $2400 under Case C or $2100 under Case D) among the two risky stocks and cash. Since there are only three assets, the overall allocation can be summarized by two percentages, and , defined to be the percentages of overall portfolio value invested in the 8-stock and 4-stock respectively. For convenience, we also designate the percentage of
Questionnaire and psychometric measures
We next provide details on the questionnaire and psychometric measures.24 Responses to ten trivia questions were used to construct our overprecision measure. Subjects were asked to construct 90% confidence intervals for 10 trivia questions which had definite numerical answers, such that they were 90% sure the correct answer lay within the
Experimental results
We begin by investigating modal path-dependent behaviors, and then address the correlations between behaviors. Univariate analysis is performed, in Section 6.2, to begin exploring how behavior is impacted by psychometric measures and SEX. In Section 6.3, regression analysis affords us a multivariate setting. Finally, in Section 6.4, two robustness checks are performed.
Conclusion
To stress our contribution, in an experimental setting designed to cleanly decompose path-dependent financial behaviors, we first find that, consistent with previous research, DE, HM and BE are modal. We also discover that path-dependent behaviors are strongly correlated, with DE and BE being positively correlated while HM is negatively correlated with both DE and BE. To our knowledge such an experimental environment simultaneously investigating these three effects is an innovation, as is the
References (71)
- et al.
A test of the different implications of the overconfidence and disposition hypotheses
Journal of Banking & Finance
(2011) - et al.
Do the disposition and house money effects coexist? A reconciliation of two behavioral biases using individual investor-level data
Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money
(2015) - et al.
The house money effect and local traders on the Sydney futures exchange
Pacific-Basin Finance Journal
(2008) - et al.
Prospect theory, mental accounting, and momentum
Journal of Financial Economics
(2005) - et al.
Path dependence in risky choice: affective and deliberative processes in brain and behavior
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
(2014) - et al.
Do we measure overconfidence? A closer look at the interval production task
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization
(2016) - et al.
Who makes acquisitions? CEO overconfidence and the market's reaction
Journal of Financial Economics
(2008) - et al.
Coexistence of disposition investors and momentum traders in stock markets: Experimental evidence
Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money
(2003) - et al.
Patterns of behavior of professionally managed and independent investors
Journal of Banking & Finance
(2001) Knee-deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
(1976)
Decision-dependent emotions and behavioral anomalies
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers?
Acta Psychologica
Speculating in gains, waiting in losses: a closer look at the disposition effect
Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance
The disposition effect in securities trading: An experimental analysis
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization
An experimental examination of the house money effect in a multi-period setting
Experimental Economics
Is the aggregate investor reluctant to realise losses? Evidence from Taiwan
European Financial Management
Boys will be boys: Gender, overconfidence, and common stock investment
Quarterly Journal of Economics
Prospect theory and asset prices
Quarterly Journal of Economics
What drives the disposition effect? An analysis of a long-standing preference-based explanation
The Journal of Finance
Preference parameters and behavioral heterogeneity: An experimental approach in the health and retirement study
The Quarterly Journal of Economics
Are investors really reluctant to realize their losses? Trading responses to past returns and the disposition effect
Review of Financial Studies
The reach of the disposition effect: Large sample evidence across investor classes
International Review of Finance
Fight or flight? Portfolio rebalancing by individual investors
Quarterly Journal of Economics
Narcissism, confidence, and risk attitude
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
Emotional balance and probability weighting
Theory and Decision
Trading performance, disposition effect, overconfidence, representativeness bias, and experience of emerging market investors
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
An experimental study of the disposition effect: Evidence from Macau
The Journal of Psychology and Financial Markets
Regret in economic and psychological theories of choice
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
Do behavioral biases affect prices?
The Journal of Finance
Gender differences in preferences
Journal of Economic Literature
Disposition effect and gender
Applied Economics Letters
My money or yours: House money payment effects
Experimental Economics
Up close and personal: Investor sophistication and the disposition effect
Management Science
How prior realized outcomes affect portfolio decisions
Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting
Thar SHE blows? Gender, competition and bubbles in experimental asset markets
American Economic Review
Cited by (6)
Do you have a choice?: Implications for belief updating and the disposition effect
2024, Journal of Economic PsychologyBehavior when the chips are down: An experimental study of wealth effects and exchange media
2020, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental FinanceAn Experiment on Diversification and Path Dependence
2021, Journal of Behavioral FinanceIndices, Index Funds And ETFs: Exploring HCI, Nonlinear Risk and Homomorphisms
2019, Indices, Index Funds And ETFs: Exploring HCI, Nonlinear Risk and Homomorphisms