Skip Navigation


RFS Advance Access originally published online on August 27, 2008
Review of Financial Studies 2009 22(5):1889-1914; doi:10.1093/rfs/hhn075
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
22/5/1889    most recent
hhn075v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kogan, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Society for Financial Studies. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Distinguishing the Effect of Overconfidence from Rational Best-Response on Information Aggregation

Shimon Kogan
Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University

Send correspondence to Shimon Kogan, Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213, telephone: (412) 268-8501; fax: (412) 268-7357. E-mail: kogan{at}andrew.cmu.edu.

JEL Classification: G12, C92, D83


   Abstract

This article studies the causal effect of individuals' overconfidence and bounded rationality on information aggregation by using a new multiperiod game in which agents are rewarded for submitting accurate estimates of an unknown asset's value based on (i) their private information and (ii) others' past estimates. By carrying out laboratory sessions of this game in which subjects' overconfidence is a treatment variable, I find that overconfidence affects the information aggregation process by increasing the dispersion of estimates and decreasing the rate of estimates' convergence. However, even when subjects are not overconfident, qualitatively similar deviations from the fully rational model predictions are observed. I show that this can be explained by subjects' strategic response to errors.


This is an updated version of a paper titled "Distinguishing Bounded Rationality from Overconfidence in Financial Markets—Theory and Experimental Results." I am indebted to my thesis committee Co-Chairs, Jonathan Berk, and Jacob Sagi, and my thesis committee members, Shachar Kariv, John Morgan, Terry Odean, and Nancy Wallace, for their insightful suggestions and continuous support, and I wish to thank the editor, Tobias Moskowitz, and an anonymous referee for their guidance. I would also like to acknowledge helpful comments by George Akerlof, Bob Anderson, Stefano DellaVigna, Vincent Glode, Rick Green, Teck Ho, Botond Koszegi, Lars Lochstoer, Rich Lyons, Ulrike Malmendier, Barbara Mellers, seminar participants at Carnegie Mellon University, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Harvard Business School, London Business School, MIT Sloan School of Management, Tel-Aviv University, University of British Columbia, University of California at Berkeley, University of Texas at Austin, University of Utah, Western Finance Association 2005 Meetings, and Yale School of Management for their valuable comments. The financial research support of The Center for Responsible Business, The Dean Witter Foundation, and IBER is gratefully acknowledged.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.