The Effect of Overconfidence and Experience on Belief Adjustment Model in Investment Judgement
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21632/irjbs.9.1.39-47Keywords:
step by step, end of sequence, investment judgement, overconfidence, experimental methodAbstract
This study examines the effect overconfidence and experience on increasing or reducing the information order effect in investment
decision making. Subject criteria in this research are: professional investor (who having knowledge and experience in the field of
investment and stock market) and nonprofessional investor (who having knowledge in the field of investment and stock market). Based on the subject criteria, then subjects in this research include: accounting students, capital market and investor. This research is using experimental method of 2 x 2 (between subjects). The researcher in conducting this experimental research is using web based. The characteristic of individual (high confidence and low confidence) is measured by calibration test. Independent variable used in this
research consist of 2 active independent variables (manipulated) which are as the followings: (1) Pattern of information presentation
(step by step and end of sequence); and (2) Presentation order (good news – bad news or bad news – good news). Dependent variable in this research is a revision of investment decision done by research subject. Participants in this study were 78 nonprofessional investor and 48 professional investors. The research result is consistent with that predicted that individuals who have a high level of confidence that will tend to ignore the information available, the impact on individuals with a high level of confidence will be spared from the effects of the information sequence.
References
Almilia, L. S., J. Hartono, Supriyadi and E. Nahartyo. (2013). Belief Adjustment Model in Investment Decision Making. Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, 15(2): 171-182
Almilia, L. S. and Supriyadi. (2013). Examining Belief Adjustment Model on Investment Decision Making. International Journal of Economics and Accounting, 4(2): 169-183.
Ahlawat, S. S. (1999). Order Effect and Memory for Evidence in Individual versus Group Decision Making in Auditing. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12: 71 – 88
Arnold, V., P. A. Collier, S. A. Leech and S. G. Sutton. (2000). The effect of experience and complexity on order and recency bias in decision making by professional accountants. Accounting and Finance, 20: 109 – 134.
Ashton, A. H., and R. H. Ashton. (1988). Sequential Belief Revision in Auditing. The Accounting Review, 64 (4): 623 – 641.
Ashton, R.H., and J. Kennedy. (2002). Eliminating Recency With Self Review: The Case Of Auditors “Going Concern” Judgments. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15: 221 – 231.
Baird, Jane E. and Robert C. Zelin II. (2000). The Effects of Information Ordering on Investor Perceptions: An Experiment Utilizing Presidents’ Letters. Journal of Financial and Strategic Decisions, 13(3): 71 – 80.
Bamber, E. M., R. J. Ramsay and R. M. Tubbs. (1997). An Examination of The Descriptive Validity Of The Belief-Adjustment Model And Alternative Attitude To Evidence In Auditing. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22: 249 – 268.
Barber, B. and T. Odean. (2001). Boys Will Be Boys: Gender, Overconfidence and Common Stock Investment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1): 261 – 292.
Chandra, A. (2009). Individual Investors’ Trading Behavior and the Competence Effect. The Icfai University Journal of Behavioral Financ, 6(1): 56 – 70.
Chen, G., K. A. Kim, J. R. Nofsinger and O. M. Rui. (2007). Trading performance, disposition effect, overconfidence,
representativeness bias, and experience of emerging market investors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20: 425 – 451
Cushing, B. E., and S. S. Ahlawat. (1996). Mitigation of Recency Bias In Auditing Judgment: The Effect of Documentation. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 15: 110 – 122.
Glaser, M. and M. Weber. (2007). Overconfidence and Trading Volume. Geneva Risk Insurance Review, 32: 1 – 36.
Guiral-Contreras, Andres, Jose A. Gonzalo-Angulo and Waymon Rodgers. (2007). Information Content and Recency Effect of the Audit Report in Loan Rating Decisions. Accounting and Finance, 47: 285 – 304.
Hogarth, R. M. (1994). Judgement and Choice. A Wiley – Interscience Publication. Edisi Kedua.
Hogarth, R. M. and H. J. Einhorn. (1992). Order Effect in Belief Updating: The Belief – Adjustment Model. Cognitive Psychology, 24: 1 – 55.
Kennedy, J. (1993). Debiasing Audit Judgment with Accountability: A Framework and Experimental Result. Journal of Accounting Research, 31: 231 – 245.
Koonce, L. (1992). Explanation and Counterexplanation during Audit Analytical Review. The Accounting Review, 67: 59 – 76.
Krull, George, Philip M. J. Reckers and Bernard Wong-On Wing. (1993). The Effect of Experience, Fraudulent Signals and Information Presentation Order on Auditors’ Beliefs. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 12(2): 143 – 153.
Messier, William F. and Richard M. Tubbs. (1994). Recency Effect in Belief Revision: The Impact of Audit Experience and the Review Process. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 13(1): 57 – 72.
Miller, D., and M. Ross. (1975). Self Serving Biases in Attribution of Causality: Fact or Fication? Psychological Bulletin, 26: 17 – 27.
Mittal, M., and R. K. Vyas. (2009). Does Irrationality in Investment Decisions Vary with Income? The Icfai University Journal of Behavioral Finance, 6(1): 26 – 42.
Pinsker, B. (2007). Long Series of Information and Nonprofessional Investors’ Belief Revision. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 19: 197 – 214.
Statman, M., S. Thorley and K. Vorkink. (2006). Investor Overconfidence and Trading Volume. Review of Financial Studies, 19: 1531 – 1565.
Trotman, Ken T. and Arnold Wright. (1996). Recency Effect: Task Complexity, Decision Mode, and Task – Specific Experience. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 8: 175 – 193.
Tubbs, Richard M., W.F. Messier, and W. R. Knechel. (1990). Notes: Recency Effect in The Auditor’s Belief Revision Process. The Accounting Review, 65(2): 452 – 480.
Tubbs, Richard M., Gary J. Gaeth, Irwin P. Levin and Laura A. Vam Osdol. (1993). Order Effect in Belief Updating with Consistent and Inconsistent Evidence. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 6: 257 – 269.
Tuttle, B., M. Coller, and F. G. Burton. (1997). An Examination of Market Efficiency: Information Order Effects in a Laboratory Market. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(1): 89 – 103.
Downloads
Submitted
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2016 Luciana Spica Almilia, Putri Wulanditya
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Journal Author(s) Rights
For IRJBS to publish and disseminate research articles, we need publishing rights (transferred from the author(s) to the publisher). This is determined by a publishing agreement between the Author(s) and IRJBS. This agreement deals with the transfer or license of the copyright of publishing to IRJBS, while Authors still retain significant rights to use and share their own published articles. IRJBS supports the need for authors to share, disseminate and maximize the impact of their research and these rights, in any databases.
As a journal Author, you have rights to many uses of your article, including use by your employing institute or company. These Author rights can be exercised without the need to obtain specific permission. Authors publishing in IRJBS journals have comprehensive rights to use their works for teaching and scholarly purposes without needing to seek permission, including:
- use for classroom teaching by Author or Author's institution and presentation at a meeting or conference and distributing copies to attendees;
- use for internal training by the author's company;
- distribution to colleagues for their research use;
- use in a subsequent compilation of the author's works;
- inclusion in a thesis or dissertation;
- reuse of portions or extracts from the article in other works (with full acknowledgment of the final article);
- preparation of derivative works (other than commercial purposes) (with full acknowledgment of the final article);
- voluntary posting on open websites operated by the author or the author’s institution for scholarly purposes,
(But it should follow the open access license of Creative Common CC-by-SA License).
Authors/Readers/Third Parties can copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, as well as remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. Still, they must give appropriate credit (the name of the creator and attribution parties (authors' detail information), a copyright notice, an open access license notice, a disclaimer notice, and a link to the material), provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made (Publisher indicates the modification of the material (if any) and retain an indication of previous modifications.
Authors/Readers/Third Parties can read, print and download, redistribute or republish the article (e.g. display in a repository), translate the article, download for text and data mining purposes, reuse portions or extracts from the article in other works, sell or re-use for commercial purposes, remix, transform, or build upon the material, they must distribute their contributions under the same license as the original Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
