Skip to main content

An experimental study on investors’ status quo bias and its determinants

Abstract

Status quo bias is an important factor which affects investors’ decision-making. The extant research on this issue only takes the prospect theory into consideration. In fact, framing effect, investor emotion and information structure are also important variables affecting status quo bias. This paper explores the impact on investors’ status quo bias from the perspectives of framing effect, investor emotion and information structure, using the experimental method. Results show that investors’ status quo bias is higher in the price differential frame than in the ratio frame of the investable portfolio. In addition, investors’ status quo bias does exist in the three emotions conditions. Particularly, status quo bias is lower in the positive emotion investors and higher in the negative emotion. Respondents’ choice of certain options is five times as uncertain options. The level of status quo bias in self-status assignment group is higher than that in external-status assignment group.

摘要

现状偏见是影响投资者决策的一个重要因素, 现有研究主要利用前景理论对其进行阐释。 框架效应、 投资者情绪以及信息结构在投资者现状偏见中起着重要作用。 利用实验方法研究了三者对投资者现状偏见的影响, 研究结果表明: 差值投资组合框架中投资者被试的现状偏见程度高于比率投资组合框架中的投资者被试的现状偏见程度; 三种情绪组中均存在投资者现状偏见, 积极情绪下被试的偏见水平较低, 消极情绪下被试的偏见水平较高; 被试选择信息结构确定的选项是选择信息模糊选项的5倍, 投资者被试对外在现状赋值的现状偏见小于自我现状赋值的现状偏见程度。

References

  1. Bomnger D S, Gleicher F, Strathman A (1994). Counterfactual thinking: From what might have been to what may be. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(22): 297–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bourne G R (1993). Proximate costs and benefits of mate acquisition at leks of the frog Ololygon rubra. Animal Behaviour, 45(6): 1051–1059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Boysen S T, Bertson G G, Mukobi K L (2001). Size matters: Impact of item size and quantity on array of choice by a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 115(4): 106–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Burmeister K, Schade C (2007). Are entrepreneurs’ decisions more biased? An experimental investigation of the susceptibility to status quo bias. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(3): 340–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cacioppo J T, Gardner W L (1999). Emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1): 191–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dupont D Y, Lee G S (2002). The endowment effect, status quo bias and loss aversion: Rational alternative explanation. The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 25(1): 87–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fishbach A, Trope Y (2005). The substitutability of external control and self-control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(3): 256–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gilboa I, Schmeidler D (1995). Case-based decision theory. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(3): 5–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gilovich T, Medvec V H (1994). The temporal pattern to the experience of regret. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(33): 357–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gleicher F, Kost K A, Baker S M, Strathman A J, Richman S A, Sherman S J (1990). The role of counterfactual thinking in judgments of affect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(2): 284–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Inman J J, Zeelenberg M (2002). Regret in repeat purchase versus switching decisions: The attenuating role of decision justifiability. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(6): 116–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Johnson E J, Hershey J, Meszaros J, Kunreuther H (1993). Framing, probability distortions, and insurance decisions. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7(1): 35–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kahneaman D (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93(5): 1449–1475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kahneman D, Knetsch J L, Thaler R (1991). The endowment effect, loss Aversion and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1):193–206

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kahneman D, Miller D T (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychology Review, 93(2): 136–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kahneaman D, Tversky A (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision making under risk. Econometrica, 47(3): 63–91

    Google Scholar 

  17. Loomes G (1998). Further evidence of the impact of regret and disappointment in choice under uncertainty. Economica, 55(217):47–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Loomes G, Sugden R (1982). Regret theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. The Economic Journal, 92(368): 805–824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Moxey A, Connell D O, Mcgettigan P, Henry D (2003). Describing treatment effects to patients—How they are expressed makes a difference? Journal of General Internal Medicine, 18(11): 948–959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Reyna V F, Ellis S C (1994). Fuzzy-trace theory and framing effects in children’s risky decision making. Psychological Science, 5(5): 275–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ritov I, Baron J (1995). Outcome knowledge, regret, and omission bias. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64(2):119–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Roese N J, Olson J M (1995). Outcome controllability and counterfactual thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(6): 620–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ryan M, Bate A (2001). Testing the assumptions of rationality, continuity and symmetry when applying discrete choice experiments in health care. Applied Economics Letters, 8(1): 59–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Samuelson W, Zeckhauser R (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1): 7–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Schwarz N, Clore G L (2003). Mood as information: 20 years later. Psychological Inquiry, 14(3):296–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Thaler R H, Shefrin H M (1981). An economic theory of self-control. The Journal of Political Economy, 89(2): 392–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(9): 1124–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Tversky A, Kahneaman D (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A Reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4): 1039–1061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 王 重鸣, 梁 立 (Wang Chongming, Liang Li) (2005). 风险决策中动态框架效应研究 (A study on dynamic framing effects in risky decision). 心理学报, (4): 394–400

  30. 何 贵兵, 梁 社红, 刘 剑 (He Guibing, Liang Shehong, Liu Jian) (2002). 风险偏好预测中的性别差异和框架效应 (Effects of gender stereotypes and task frames on risk preference predictions). 应用心理学, (4): 19–23

  31. 赖 志刚, 时 勘 (Lai Zhigang, Shi Kan) (2007). 后悔倾向、 后悔反应与风险偏好的关系研究 (A study on the relationships among regret orientation, regret response and risk preference). 管理评论, (3): 3–7

  32. 施 俊琦, 王 垒, 彭 凯平 (Shi Junqi, Wang Lei, Peng Kaiping). 作为效应的象征性与利益性影响因素: 后悔理论的经济心理学分析 (Symbolic and economic factors in action effect: An economic-psychological analysis of regret theory). 心理科学, (4): 1016–1018

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jianbiao Li.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Li, J., Ren, G., Ma, Q. et al. An experimental study on investors’ status quo bias and its determinants. Front. Bus. Res. China 3, 543 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11782-009-0026-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • status quo bias
  • framing effect
  • investor emotion
  • information structure

关键词

  • 现状偏见
  • 框架效应
  • 投资者情绪
  • 信息结构