Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
a v a i l a b l e a t w w w. s c i e n c e d i r e c t . c o m
ScienceDirect
a
Sambhram Academy of Management Studies, Bangalore, India
b
RV Institute of Management, Bangalore, India
Received 20 August 2013; revised 12 April 2014; accepted 7 September 2015; available online 9 October 2015
KEYWORDS Abstract This paper aims at studying the impact of investment experience, gender, and level
Overconfidence; of education on two specific biases—overconfidence and self-attribution, and exploring the re-
Self-attribution; lationship between the two biases. Data collected from a sample of 309 mutual fund investors
Gender; were analysed. The results show that overconfidence is higher among men than women and in-
Experience; creases with investment experience and education. Self-attribution increases with education,
Education; but there is no significant association between self-attribution bias and gender, as also between
Bias self-attribution bias and investor’s experience. The findings also show a significant association
between self-attribution and overconfidence.
© 2015 Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Indian Institute of Management
Bangalore.
self-attribution bias in mergers and acquisitions by looking education. In light of the above contradictions, we wanted
at the sequence of deals made by individual acquirers. They to test the following hypotheses
examined the history of acquirers of US public companies from
1985–2002 and found that self-attribution of past success leads H1. Experienced investors are more overconfident than novice
to hubris in decision making. The confidence developed from investors.
past acquisition leads companies to value destructive deals, H2. Experienced investors are more self-attributive than
suggesting that overconfidence stems from self-attribution novice investors.
bias. Gervais and Odean (2001) developed a model that de- H3. Overconfidence increases with the level of education.
scribes how novice traders who are self-attributive and suc- H4. Self-attribution bias increases with the level of education.
cessful, eventually become overconfident and take high risk
in investment. This is because they take inadequate degree
of responsibility and fail to learn from losses, as they attri- Overconfidence and gender
bute losses to external factors. Their study finds that traders
who are both young and successful trade the most and dem- Although men and women are found to be overconfident,
onstrate more overconfidence. Feng Li (2010) studied the re- studies have shown that the degree of overconfidence varies
lationship between self-attribution bias and overconfidence among them and men are more overconfident than women.
using two settings that reflect the manager’s belief about Lewellen, Lease, and Schlarbaum (1977) found that men have
future cash flows. The study revealed that managers have self- a stronger tendency to overconfident behaviour than women.
serving attribution bias which leads to overconfidence. Hsu Lundeberg, Fox, and Punccohar (1994) claim that the higher
and Shiu (2007) analysed the investment performance of 6993 degree of overconfidence in men is dependent on the task in-
investors bidding in 77 discriminatory IPO auctions in the volved. Studies also show that the higher level of overcon-
Taiwan market, taking the number of IPO auctions in which fidence in men is related to masculine jobs and also to the
investors placed bids as being representative of their expe- frequency of the feedback they receive (Beyer & Bowden,
rience. This model of self-attribution bias predicts that ex- 1997; Lenney, 1977). Barber and Odean (2001) studied in-
perienced bidders become overconfident due to successful vestment transactions of 35 000 households, between 1991
initial bids and are likely to bid again and again, leading to and 1997, and noted that overconfident investors overesti-
inferior performance. mate the precision of their information and thereby the ex-
According to Gervais and Odean (2001), the level of over- pected gains of trading. They also found that men are more
confidence decreases as an investor becomes more experi- overconfident than women, trade more and perform worse
enced. According to their framework, investors gain than women. Pompian and Longo (2004), in their study to
experience by participating in the stock market and thus the create investment programmes, based on personality type and
level of experience depends both on the amount of time spent gender to produce better investment outcomes, have found
on the stock market and the intensity of participation. Their that many personality types and both genders are differ-
study suggests that successful and inexperienced traders are ently disposed to numerous behavioural finance biases.
more overconfident than experienced traders. Locke and Mann Gervais and Odean’s (2001) model shows that the inves-
(2001) also suggest that traders with more experience are tor’s overconfidence arises from self-serving self-attribution
less likely to take more risk after a period of abnormally bias. Studies by Deaux and Farris (1977), Meehan and Overton
good profits than their less experienced counterparts. (1986), and Beyer (1990) show that men are more prone to
Menkhoff, Schmeling, and Schmidt (2013), in a study on over- self-attribution bias than women. In line with the above
confidence in the context of financial markets, found that inquiry, the following hypothesis is formulated:
investment experience and age have a significant impact on
the level of overconfidence and that as age and experience H5. Men are more overconfident than women.
increase, overconfidence decreases. Similarly, the experi- H6. Men are more self-attributive than women.
ments by Gloede and Menkhoff (2011) show that working ex-
perience of a professional is accompanied by less As studies show a strong association between self-
overconfidence. attribution bias and overconfidence, we also propose to test
Some of the other studies show just the opposite. Heath the following hypothesis:
and Tversky (1991) and Frascara (1999) in their studies show
that experts are more likely to be overconfident than rela- H7. There is a relationship between self-attribution bias and
tively inexperienced subjects. In a study where individual over- overconfidence bias.
confidence was investigated within the context of an
experimental asset market in which 72 participants traded
one risky asset on six markets, Kirchler and Maciejovsky (2002) Methodology
found that the degree of overconfidence increases. Glaser and
Weber (2007) in their experiments found that professional To test the above mentioned hypotheses, primary data were
traders have a higher degree of overconfidence than stu- collected from a sample of 309 mutual fund investors. The
dents in the two tasks they analysed, namely, trend recog- sample was chosen randomly from among mutual fund in-
nition and forecasting of stock price movement. Bhandari and vestors who visited a company in Bangalore, which is the reg-
Deaves (2006) found that highly educated and well paid males istrar and transfer agent for mutual fund asset management
are susceptible to overconfidence. Studies by Deaves, Luders, companies (AMC). (Population samples are random when no
and Schroder (2010), on the dynamics of overconfidence, show bias determines their individual selection (Godden, 2004).)
how overconfidence increases with experience and level of The study uses a survey research method, using a questionnaire
Overconfidence and self-attribution bias, and investment decisions 231
with questions on overconfidence bias and self-attribution bias. described their feeling. (1) After making an investment,
Overconfidence manifests itself in miscalibration, better than assume that you hear of a news report that has negative im-
average effect, illusion of control, and unrealistic opti- plications regarding the potential outcome of the invest-
mism. Overconfidence in this study is measured by “better ment you have just executed. How likely are you to then seek
than average effect” form of overconfidence (Glaser & Weber, information that could confirm that you have made a bad de-
2007). The degree of better than average effect is mea- cision? 2) When returns to your portfolio increase, what do
sured using a Likert scale with five questions tapping this di- you believe the change in performance is mainly due to? 3)
mension. Self-attribution bias was also treated similarly. The After you have made a successful trade, how likely are you
scales used in earlier studies were adopted for this study. The to put your profits to work in a quick subsequent trade, rather
response across gender, level of education, and investor’s ex- than letting the money idle until you are sure you have located
perience were studied. Investors with less than two years of another good investment?
investment experience were considered as less experi- An analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was applied to test
enced (novice) investors and those with above two years of the significant difference between gender, level of educa-
experience were considered experienced. Any investment de- tion, and investor experience (independent variable) with the
cision process requires investors to understand that both firm dependent variables, overconfidence bias and self-attribution
specific factors and market variables are relevant. As studies bias. The correlation between overconfidence and self-
do not clearly demarcate a novice from an experienced in- attribution bias was carried out to find the degree of asso-
vestor in terms of the number of years of investment expe- ciation between the two.
rience, we assume that the initial years can be considered
the novice period where the investor is still learning about
the factors to be considered before an investment decision. Analysis and results
Therefore, for the purpose of this study, we designate in-
vestors with less than two years of investment experience as Descriptive statistics
novice investors and investors with more than two years of The demographic profile of the respondents is depicted in
investment experience as experienced investors. Though the Table 1. (Direct investors are those who make their own in-
level of confidence and self-attribution at different levels of vestment decisions and indirect investors are those who
experience can give better insights, we limit our study to un- consult a financial advisor for their investment decisions.)
derstanding overconfidence and self-attribution among novice
investors and a larger group (at different levels of experi- Overconfidence bias
ence) with varied investment understanding, i.e. experi-
enced investors. H1. Experienced investors are more overconfident than novice
To capture the dimension of overconfidence bias, a four investors.
point interval scale was used, ranging from below average to
well above average. The respondents were asked to indi- Table 2 shows the perception of the respondents
cate their response which best described their feeling against categorised on the basis of their years of investment expe-
each of the items. The questions were: (1) Relative to other rience. The mean score for the attribute, “Relative to other
drivers, how good are you on the road? (2) How good are you drivers, how good are you on the road?” given by the less ex-
on your job? (3) How do you rate your personal level of in- perienced investors is 2.57 and by experienced investors is
vestment? (4) Relative to other investors, how good are you? 2.75. The ANOVA output shows an F value (ratio between two
(5) How do you rate your ability to have predicted the 2008 sample variances) of 2.282 and sig. (significant) value of 0.132.
recession (financial crisis)? Since the sig. value is >0.05, the mean difference is not sig-
Similarly, to capture the dimension of self-attribution bias, nificant which implies that difference in response based on
the respondents were asked four questions with three choices the years of experience is not significant. Similarly, the mean
against each. They were asked to choose the option that best score for the attribute, “How good are you on your job?” given
232 K.C. Mishra, M.J. Metilda
by the less experienced investors is 2.80 and by experi- Self-attribution and experience
enced investors is 3.02. The ANOVA output shows an F value
of 5.785 and the sig. value is 0.017. Since the sig. value is H2. Experienced investors are more self-attributive than
<0.05, the mean difference is significant which implies that novice investors.
there is significant difference in response based on inves-
tor’s experience. Table 3 shows the perception of the respondents
The mean score for “How do you rate your personal level categorised on the basis of their level of investment expe-
of investment?” given by the less experienced investors is 2.22 rience. The mean score for “After making an investment,
and by experienced investors is 2.61. The ANOVA output shows assume that you hear of a news report that has negative im-
an F value of 13.271 and the sig. value is 0.001. Since the sig. plications regarding the potential outcome of the invest-
value is <0.05, the mean difference is significant which implies ment you have just executed. How likely are you then to seek
that difference in response based on investor experience is information that could confirm that you have made a bad de-
statistically significant. The mean score for “Relative to other cision?” given by investors with less than two years of expe-
investors, how good are you?” given by less experienced in- rience is 2.02, by investors with over two years of experience
vestors is 2.35 and by experienced investors is 2.47. The is 2.27. The ANOVA output shows an F value of 5.690 and sig.
ANOVA output shows the F value is 1.360 and sig. value is value of 0.018. Since the sig. value is <0.05, the mean dif-
0.244. Since the sig. value is >0.05, the mean difference is ference is significant which implies that difference in re-
not significant which implies that difference in response based sponse based on the years of experience is statistically
on level of experience is statistically not significant. The mean significant. The mean score for “When returns to your port-
score for “How do you rate your ability to have predicted the folio increase, what do you believe the change in perfor-
2008 recession (financial crisis)?” given by the inexperi- mance is mainly due to?” given by investors with less than
enced investors is 1.95 and by experienced investors is 2.09. two years of experience is 1.90, and by investors with over
The ANOVA output shows the F value is 1.507 and the sig. value two years of experience is 1.70. The ANOVA output shows an
is 0.221. Since the sig. value is >0.05, the mean difference F value of 6.915 and the sig. value is 0.009. Since the sig. value
is not significant which implies that difference in response is <0.05, the mean difference is significant, which implies that
based on investor experience is statistically not significant. there is significant difference in response based on investor
Therefore, the mean score for overconfidence bias given experience. The mean score for “After you have made a suc-
by investors with less than two years of experience is 2.3878 cessful trade, how likely are you to put your profits to work
and by experienced investors is 2.5815. The ANOVA output in a quick subsequent trade, rather than letting the money
shows an F value of 7.673 and sig. value of 0.006. Since the lie idle until you have located another good investment?” given
sig. value is <0.05, the mean difference is significant which by investors with less than two years of experience is 1.91,
implies that difference in response based on investor’s level and by investors with over two years of experience is 1.96
of experience is statistically significant. So the null hypoth- .The ANOVA output shows an F value of 3.66 and a sig. value
esis is rejected and it can be inferred that experienced in- of 0.056. Since the sig. value is almost equal to 0.05, the mean
vestors who have more than two years of investment difference is significant, which implies that difference in re-
experience are more overconfident than less experienced sponse based on investor’s experience is statistically signifi-
investors. cant. The mean score for “Suppose your investment was less
Overconfidence and self-attribution bias, and investment decisions 233
successful, what do you think is the reason?” given by inves- is 2.72. The ANOVA output shows an F value of 7.942 and a
tors with less than two years of experience is 1.91, and by sig. value of 0.000. Since the sig. value is <0.05, the mean
investors with over two years of experience is 1.96. The ANOVA difference is significant which implies that difference in re-
output shows an F value of 0.323 and sig. value of 0.570. Since sponse based on investor’s level of education is statistically
the sig. value is >0.05, the mean difference is not significant. significant. The mean score for “Relative to other inves-
The mean score for self-attribution of respondents based tors, how good are you?” given by the high school educated
on the years of experience given by investors with less than investors is 1.89, by graduates is 2.38, and by post gradu-
two years of experience is 1.9460, and by investors with over ates is 2.61. The ANOVA output shows the F value is 7.505
two years of experience is 2.0209. The ANOVA output shows and sig. value is 0.001. Since the sig. value is <0.05, the mean
an F value of 2.037 and a sig. value of 0.155 Since the sig. difference is statistically significant. The mean score for “How
value is >0.005, the mean difference between respondents do you rate your ability to have predicted the 2008 reces-
based on their experience is not significant which implies that sion (financial crisis)” given by the high school educated in-
there is no significant difference between the years of ex- vestors is 1.44, by graduates is 2.02, and by post graduates
perience in investment and self-attribution. So, the null hy- is 2.18. The ANOVA output shows the F value is 5.952 and the
pothesis is accepted. sig. value is 0.003. Since the sig. value is <0.05, the mean
difference is statistically significant. The mean score for over-
Overconfidence and level of education confidence given by the high school educated investors is
2.0881, by graduates is 2.4908, and by post graduates is
H3. Overconfidence increases with the level of education. 2.6583. The ANOVA output shows an F value of 10.503 and
sig. value of 0.000. Since the sig. value is <0.05, the mean
Table 4 shows the perception of the respondents difference is significant which implies that difference in re-
categorised based on their level of education. The mean score sponse based on level of education is statistically signifi-
for “Relative to other drivers, how good are you on the road?” cant. So the test shows that overconfidence increases with
given by the high school educated investors is 2.24, by gradu- the level of education and so the null hypothesis is rejected.
ates is 2.73, and by post graduates it is 2.74. The ANOVA
output shows an F value of 2.955 and a sig. value of 0.54. Since Self-attribution and level of education
the sig. value is >0.05, the mean difference is not signifi-
cant which implies that difference in response based on the H4. Self-attribution bias increases with the level of education.
level of education is not significant. The mean score for “How
good are you on your job?” given by the high school edu- Table 5 shows the perception of the respondents
cated investors is 2.52, by graduates is 2.96, and by post gradu- categorised on the basis of their level of education. The mean
ates is 3.04. The ANOVA output shows an F value of 4.369 and score for “After making an investment, assume that you hear
a sig. value of 0.013. Since the sig. value is <0.05, the mean of a news report that has negative implications regarding the
difference is significant which implies that there is signifi- potential outcome of the investment you have just ex-
cant difference in response based on investor’s level of edu- ecuted. How likely are you then to seek information that could
cation. The mean score for “How do you rate your personal confirm that you have made a bad decision?” given by the high
level of investment?” given by the high school educated in- school educated investors is 0.2.10, by graduates is 0.2.09,
vestors is 2.05, by graduates is 2.40, and by post graduates and by post graduates is 0.2.35. The ANOVA output shows the
234 K.C. Mishra, M.J. Metilda
F value to be 3.774 and sig. value to be 0.024. Since the level <0.005, the mean difference between respondents at differ-
of significance is <0.05, the mean difference is significant ent levels of education is significant which implies that
which implies that difference in response based on the level self-attribution increases with education and the null hy-
of education is significant. The mean score for “When returns pothesis is rejected.
to your portfolio increase, what do you believe the change
in performance is mainly due to?” given by high school edu- Overconfidence and gender
cated investors is 1.95, by graduates is 1.78, and by post gradu-
ates is 1.70. The ANOVA output showed the F value is 1.720 H5. Men are more overconfident than women.
and significant value is 0.181. Since the level of significance
is greater than 0.05, the mean difference is not significant, Table 6 shows the perception of the respondents
which implies that there is significant difference in re- categorised on the basis of their gender. The mean score for
sponse based on investor education. The mean score for “After “Relative to other drivers, how good are you on the road?”
you have made a successful trade, how likely are you to put given by male respondents is 2.75 and by female respon-
your profits to work in a quick subsequent trade, rather than dents is 2.55. The ANOVA output shows an F value of 2.691
letting the money lie idle until you have located another good and sig. value of 0.102. Since the sig value is >0.05, the mean
investment?” given by high school educated investors is 2.00, difference is not significant which implies that difference in
by graduates is 1.98, and by post graduates it 2.26. The ANOVA response based on gender is not statistically significant. The
output showed the F value is 4.538 and significant value is mean score for “How good are you on your job?” given by male
0.011. Since the level of significance is less than 0.05, the respondents is 2.98 and by female respondents is 2.90. The
mean difference is significant which implies that difference ANOVA output shows an F value of 0.723 and sig. value of
in response based on investor education is statistically 0.396. Since the sig. value is >0.05, the mean difference is
significant. not significant which implies that difference in response based
The mean score for “Suppose your investment was less suc- on gender is not significant. The mean score for “How do you
cessful, what do you think is the reason?” given by high school rate your personal level of investment?” given by the male
educated investors is 1.82, by graduates is 1.87, and by post respondents is 2.61 and by female respondents is 2.22. The
graduates is 2.09. The ANOVA output showed the F value is ANOVA output shows an F value of 12.693 and significant value
3.980 and significant value is 0.020. Since the level of sig- of 0.000. Since the sig. value is <0.05, the mean difference
nificance is less than 0.05, the mean difference is signifi- is significant which implies that difference in response based
cant which implies that difference in response based on their on gender is statistically significant. The mean score for “Rela-
level of education is statistically significant. tive to other investors, how good are you?” given by male re-
The mean score for self-attribution of respondents based spondents is 2.53 and by female respondents is 2.18. The
on the level of education given by high school educated ANOVA output shows an F value of 11.053 and a sig. value of
investors is 1.9697, by graduates is 1.9288, and by post 0.001. Since the sig. value is <0.05, the mean difference is
graduates is 2.1012. The ANOVA output shows an F value of significant which implies that difference in response based
6.177 and a sig. value of 0.002. Since the sig. value is on gender is statistically significant. The mean score for “How
do you rate your ability to have predicted the 2008 reces- gender. The mean score for “After you have made a success-
sion (financial crisis)?” given by the male respondents is 2.75 ful trade, how likely are you to put your profits to work in a
and by female respondents is 2.55. The ANOVA output shows quick subsequent trade, rather than letting the money lie idle
an F value of 10.399 and sig. value of 0.001. Since the sig. until you have located another good investment?” given by
value is <0.05, the mean difference is significant which implies male respondents is 2.09 and by female respondents is 2.10.
that difference in response based on gender is statistically The ANOVA output shows an F value of 0.006 and a sig. value
significant. of 0.940. Since the sig. value is >0.05, the mean difference
The mean score for overconfidence given by male respon- is not significant which implies that difference in response
dents is 2.5983 and by female respondents is 2.3278. The based on investor’s gender is not statistically significant. The
ANOVA output shows an F value of 13.974 and a sig. value of mean score for “Suppose your investment is less successful,
0.000. Since the sig. value is <0.05, the mean difference is what do you think is the reason?” given by male respon-
significant which implies that difference in response based dents is 1.96 and by female respondents is 1.91. The ANOVA
on gender is statistically significant. So the test shows that output shows an F value of 0.333 and a sig. value of 0.565.
men are more overconfident than women, and the null hy- Since the sig. value is >0.05, the mean difference is not
pothesis is rejected. significant.
The mean score for self-attribution of respondents based
on their genders given by male respondents is 1.9861 and by
Self-attribution vs. gender
female respondents is 2.0375. The ANOVA output shows an
F value of 0.884 and sig. value of 0.348. Since the sig. value
H6. Men are more self-attributive than women.
is >0.005, the mean difference between respondents based
on their gender is not significant which implies that self-
Table 7 shows the perception of the respondents
attribution has no significant relationship with the gender of
categorised on the basis of their gender. The mean score for
the respondents and the null hypothesis is accepted.
“After making an investment, assume that you hear of a news
report that has negative implications regarding the poten-
tial outcome of the investment you have just executed. How Overconfidence and self-attribution
likely are you then to seek information that could confirm that
you have made a bad decision?” given by male respondents H7. There is a relationship between self-attribution bias and
is 2.19, and by female respondents is 2.19. The ANOVA output overconfidence bias.
shows an F value of .002 and sig. value of 0.964. Since the
sig. value is >0.05, the mean difference is not statistically sig- To find the degree of association between overconfi-
nificant. The mean score for “When returns to your portfo- dence and self-attribution, a correlation analysis was carried
lio increase, what do you believe the change in performance out (Fig. 1). As shown in Fig. 1, the relationship is positive
is mainly due to?” given by male respondents is 1.70, and by at 0.136, which indicates the strength of association between
female respondents is 1.94. The ANOVA output shows an F the two variables. The sig. value is 0.009 (Table 8). As the
value of 9.439 and a sig. value of 0.002. Since the sig. value sig. value is <0.05, the association is significant, implying that
is <0.05, the mean difference is significant, which implies that there is a correlation between self-attribution and overcon-
there is significant difference in response based on investor fidence. So, the null hypothesis is rejected.
Overconfidence and self-attribution bias, and investment decisions 237
Table 9 (a) Model summary. (b) Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). (c) Model: Coefficients.
(a)
Model Independent variable Dependent variable r r2 Adjusted r2 Std. error
1 Self-attribution Over- confidence 0.136 0.018 0.015 0.562
(b)
Model Sum of squares Df Mean square F Sig.
1 Regression 1.798 1 1.798 5.696 0.018
Residual 95.953 304 0.316
Total 97.751 305
(c)
Coefficients
Model Unstandardised Standardised coefficients T Sig.
coefficients
B Std. error Beta
1 (Constant) 2.161 0.157 13.777 0.000
Self-attribution 0.183 0.077 0.136 2.387 0.018
Predictors: (Constant), self-attribution.
Dependent variable: Overconfidence.
Df: degrees of freedom.
respondents and their level of self-attribution, and (7) there Bradley, G. W. (1978). Self-serving biases in the attribution process:
is an association between overconfidence bias and self- a reexamination of the fact or fiction question. Journal of Per-
attribution bias. This study confirms the presence of bias among sonality and Social Psychology, 36, 56–71.
mutual fund investors. Investor experience, level of educa- Camerer, C., & Lovallo, D. (1999). Over confidence and excess entry:
an experimental approach. The American Economic Review, 89(1),
tion, and gender do have an impact on investor bias. Further
306–318.
there is an association between self-attribution and over- Daniel, K., Hirshleifer, D., & Subrahmanyam, A. (1998). Investors psy-
confidence bias. Controlled experimental studies can throw chology and security market under- and overreactions. The Journal
further insights on the relationship between the variables. of Finance, 53(6), 1839–1885.
This study contributes to the existing literature on bias, es- De Bondt, W. F. M., & Thaler, R. H. (1985). Does the stock market
pecially the influence of demographic variables on overcon- overreact. The Journal of Finance, 40(3), 793–805.
fidence and self-attribution bias. From the investors’ De Bondt, W. F. M., & Thaler, R. H. (1995). Financial decision-
perspective, an understanding of the psychology and emo- making in markets and firms: a behavioral perspective. Hand-
tions underlying investment decisions can help both finan- books in Operations Research and Management Science, 9, 385–
cial advisors and individual investors in formulating their 410.
Deaux, K., & Farris, E. (1977). Attributing causes for one’s own per-
financial goals better.
formance: the effects of sex, norms, and outcome. Journal of Re-
search in Personality, 11, 59–72.
Deaves, R., Luders, E., & Schroder, M. (2010). The dynamics of over-
References confidence: evidence from stock market forecasters. Journal of
Economic Behavior and Organization, 75(3), 402–412.
Barber, B. M., & Odean, T. (2000). Trading is hazardous to your wealth: Dunn, D. (1989). Demonstrating a self-serving bias. Teaching of Psy-
the common stock investment performance of individual inves- chology, 16, 21–22.
tors. The Journal of Finance, 55(2), 773–806. Fama, E. F. (1965). Random walks in stock market prices. Financial
Barber, B. M., & Odean, T. (2001). Boys will be boys: gender, over- Analysts Journal, 21(5), 55–59.
confidence, and common stock investment. The Quarterly Journal Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1977). Knowing with cer-
of Economics, 116(1), 261–292. tainty: the appropriateness of extreme confidence. Journal of Ex-
Beyer, S. (1990). Gender differences in the accuracy of self-evaluations perimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 3,
of performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 552–564.
960–970. Forbes, W. (2009). Behavioral finance. Chichester, UK: John Wiley
Beyer, S., & Bowden, E. M. (1997). Gender differences in self- & Sons Ltd.
perceptions: convergent evidence from three measures of accu- Frascara, J. (1999). Cognition, emotion and other inescapable di-
racy and bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 157– mensions of human experience. Visible Language, 33(1), 74–
172. 87.
Bhandari, G., & Deaves, R. (2006). The demographics of overconfi- Gervais, S., & Odean, T. (2001). Learning to be overconfident. The
dence. The Journal of Behavioral Finance, 7(1), 5–11. Review of Financial Studies, 14, 1–27.
Billet, M. T., & Qian, Y. (2005). Are overconfident managers born or Glaser, M. L., & Weber, M. (2007). On the trend recognition and fore-
made? Evidence of self-attribution bias from frequent acquirers. casting ability of professional traders. Decision Analysis, 4(4), 176–
Working Paper (University of Iowa). 193.
Overconfidence and self-attribution bias, and investment decisions 239
Gloede, O., & Menkhoff, L. (2011). Financial professionals’ overcon- Meehan, A. M., & Overton, W. F. (1986). Gender differences for
fidence: is it experience, function, or attitude? European success and performance on spatial tasks. Merrill- Palmer Quar-
Financial Management, doi:10.1111/j.1468-036X.2011.00636.x. terly, 32, 427–441.
Godden, B. (2004). Sample size calculation. <http://www Menkhoff, L., Schmeling, M., & Schmidt, U. (2013). Overconfi-
.williamgodden.com/samplesizeformula>. dence, experience and professionalism: an experimental study.
Heath, C., & Tversky, A. (1991). Preference and belief: ambiguity Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 86(C), 92–
and competence in choice under uncertainty. Journal of Risk and 101.3. Elsevier.
Uncertainty, 4, 5–28. Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in attribution
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82, 213–
York: Wiley & Sons. 225.
Hirshleifer, D. (2001). Investor psychology and asset pricing. The Montier, J. (2002). Behavioural finance: insights into irrational minds
Journal of Finance, 56, 1533–1597. and markets. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Hsu, Y., & Shiu, C.-Y. (2007). The overconfidence and self-attribution Myers, D. (1996). Social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
bias of investors in the primary market. 20th Australasian Finance Pompian, M. M. (2006). Behavioral finance and wealth manage-
& Banking Conference Paper. ment: how to build optimal portfolios that account for investor
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of biases. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
decision making under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econo- Pompian, M. M., & Longo, J. (2004). A new paradigm for practical
metric Society, 47(2), 313–327. application of behavioural finance: creating investment pro-
Kirchler, E., & Maciejovsky, B. (2002). Simultaneous over- and under- grams based on personality types and gender to produce better
confidence: evidence from experimental asset markets. Journal investment outcomes. The Journal of Wealth Management, 7(2),
of Risk and Uncertainty, 25, 65–85. 9–15.
Lenney, E. (1977). Women’s self-confidence in achievement set- Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: the self-concept,
tings. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 1–13. social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/
Lewellen, W. G., Lease, R. C., & Schlarbaum, G. G. (1977). Pat- Cole.
terns of investment strategy and behavior among individual in- Shefrin, H. (2000). Beyond greed and fear: understanding behavioural
vestors. Journal of Business, 50(3), 296–333. finance and the psychology of investing. Boston. MA: Harvard Busi-
Li, F. (2010). Manager’s self serving attribution bias and corporate ness School Press.
financial policies. Conference at Stephen M. Ross, School of Busi- Shefrin, H. M., & Statman, M. (1984). Explaining investor prefer-
ness, University of Michigan. ence for cash dividend. The Journal of Financial Economics, 13(2),
Locke, P. R., & Mann, S. C. (2001). House money and overconfi- 253–282.
dence on the trading floor, Working Paper, George Washington Shiller, R. J. (2000). Irrational exuberance. Princeton University Press.
University. ISBN 0-691-05062-7.
Lundeberg, M. A., Fox, P. W., & Punccohar, J. (1994). Highly con- Zuckerman, M. (1979). Attribution of success and failure revisited,
fident but wrong: gender differences and similarities in confi- or: the motivational bias is alive and well in attribution theory.
dence judgments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 114– Journal of Personality, 47(2), 245–287.
121.