Do stock investors need to discuss to reduce decision bias?
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.16(3).2019.01
-
Article InfoVolume 16 2019, Issue #3, pp. 1-9
- Cited by
-
Funding dataFunder name: University of SurabayaFunder identifier: –Award numbers: –
- 936 Views
-
167 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
The research examines the role of discussion in investors’ decision in a step-by-step information setting. Several studies present that disclosure strategy stimulates order-effect bias, but simultaneous information decreases the impact of that bias. This bias makes people weigh more heavily to recent observations than they do to older ones. Using step-by-step information, a recency effect is expected to be found. This study uses an experimental method. The participants are the representation of non-professional investors in the stock market because of a lack of knowledge and experience. Participants are also a reflection of the customer easiness in registering to be stock traders. The role of discussion between participants is a new feature of this experiment. After evaluating participants’ decision in a discussion, the experiment shows that an individual’s choice after discussion produces more bias, although they already learn the information before the discussion. The research finds that (1) using the within-subject sample, group discussion produces overvaluation (undervaluation) in positive (negative) sequential information, (2) there is bigger price revision when negative sequential information is presented. This study suggests disclosure strategies for companies. Considering a recency bias, companies must present step-by-step information when they disclose good news, but they must avoid step-by-step disclosures when giving bad news. The second practical implication is for investors; they need to think about the benefits of joining an investor club, since the discussion exacerbates recency bias. These results are expected to contribute to finance literature.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)G11
-
References21
-
Tables2
-
Figures0
-
- Table 1. The results of stock valuation using group discussion
- Table 2. The results of price revision using group discussion
-
- Ahlawat, S. S. (1999). Order effects and memory for evidence in individual versus group decision making in auditing. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(1), 71-88.
- Alvia, L., & Sulistiawan, D. (2010). The examination of recency and knowledge effect in stock investment decision making: an experimental study. Indonesian Journal of Accounting Research, 13(1), 45-58.
- Arnold, V., Sutton, S. G., Hayne, S. C., & Smith, C. A. (2000). Group decision making: The impact of opportunity-cost time pressure and group support systems. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 12(1), 69-96.
- Ashton, A. H., & Ashton, R. H. (1988). Sequential belief revision in auditing. Accounting Review, 623-641.
- Ashton, R. H., & Kennedy, J. (2002). Eliminating recency with self‐review: the case of auditors’ going concern judgments. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15(3), 221-231.
- Barber, B. M., & Odean, T. (2000). Too many cooks spoil the profits: Investment club performance. Financial Analysts Journal, 56(1), 17-25.
- Bazerman, H. (1994). Judgment in Managerial Decision Making. Wiley & Sons. Inc.
- Chalos, P., & Poon, M. C. (2000). Participation and performance in capital budgeting teams. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 12, 199-229.
- De Bondt, W. F., & Thaler, R. (1985). Does the stock market overreact? The Journal of finance, 40(3), 793-805.
- Fudenberg, D., & Levine, D. K. (2015). Learning with recency bias. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 10826-10829.
- Furnham, A. (1986). The robustness of the recency effect: Studies using legal evidence. The Journal of General Psychology, 113(4), 351-357.
- Hellmann, A., Yeow, C., & Mello, L. D. (2017). The influence of textual presentation order and graphical presentation on the judgements of non-professional investors. Accounting and Business Research, 47(4), 455-470.
- Hogarth, R. M., & Einhorn, H. J. (1992). Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model. Cognitive psychology, 24(1), 1-55.
- Libby, R., & Tan, H. T. (1999). Analysts’ reactions to warnings of negative earnings surprises. Journal of Accounting Research, 37(2), 415-435.
- Martelli, C., Bellini, E., & Salvatori, M. F. (2015). Knowledge management and reuse in tourism destination observatories. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 10(1), 1-15.
- Nofsinger, J. R. (2002). The Psychology of Investing. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
- Pietsch, C. P. R., & Messier, Jr. W. F. (2017). The Effects of Time Pressure on Belief Revision in Accounting: A Review of Relevant Literature within a Pressure-Arousal-Effort-Performance Framework. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 29(2), 51-71.
- Pinsker, R. (2007). Long series of information and nonprofessional investors’ belief revision. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 19(1), 197-214.
- Pinsker, R. (2011). Primacy or recency? A study of order effects when nonprofessional investors are provided a long series of disclosures. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 23(1), 161-183.
- Trotman, K. T., & Wright, A. (1996). Recency effects: Task complexity, decision mode, and task-specific experience. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 8, 175-193.
- Tuttle, B., Coller, M., & Burton, F. G. (1997). An examination of market efficiency: Information order effects in a laboratory market. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(1), 89-103.