Situational strength, individuals and investment decisions on a takeover

  1. Rosa Mayoral 1
  2. Eleuterio Vallelado 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Valladolid
    info

    Universidad de Valladolid

    Valladolid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01fvbaw18

Revista:
Revista española de financiación y contabilidad

ISSN: 0210-2412

Ano de publicación: 2015

Volume: 44

Número: 3

Páxinas: 239-263

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.1080/02102412.2015.1033605 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR

Outras publicacións en: Revista española de financiación y contabilidad

Obxectivos de Desenvolvemento Sustentable

Resumo

This paper focuses on the impact of non-financial factors on individual investment decisions when information on a takeover bid announcement is public. Our results indicate that individual traits modulate the impact of information clarity and source reliability on decision-making. Thus, when individual traits are ignored, we find that investors use situational variables to distinguish noises from news. However, information clarity is more helpful than source reliability to interpret the information and take action even when source reliability diminishes. In contrast, when individual traits are considered, we observe that not only the lack of clarity, but also the lack of source reliability reduces situational strength. Furthermore, under uncertainty, individuals who are intuitive and tolerant to ambiguity are more capable of distinguishing between relevant and irrelevant stimuli and are more likely to expect a drop in the target’s share price. Finally, we observe that proactivity, in situations of uncertainty, is more important on action than cognitive style and tolerance to ambiguity. Intuition and proactivity impact positively on trading, while proactivity fosters coherence between perception and decisions.

€ Ver financiamento

Información de financiamento

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • F.J.Acedo,, & M.V.Jones, (2007). Speed of internationalization and entrepreneurial cognition: Insights and a comparison between international new ventures, exporters and domestic firms. Journal of World Business, 42, 236–252. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2007.04.012
  • C.W.Allinson,, & J.Hayes, (1996). The cognitive style index: A measure of intuition-analysis for organizational research. Journal of Management Studies, 33(1), 119–135. doi:10.1111/joms.1996.33.issue-1
  • G.W.Allport,, & L.J.Postman, (1947). The psychology of rumor. New York, NY: H. Holt and Company.
  • S.J.Armstrong,, E.Cools,, & E.Sadler‐Smith, (2012). Role of cognitive styles in business and management: Reviewing 40 years of research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(3), 238–262. doi:10.1111/ijmr.2012.14.issue-3
  • S.J.Armstrong,, & A.Hird, (2009). Cognitive style and entrepreneurial drive of new and mature business owner-managers. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(4), 419–430. doi:10.1007/s10869-009-9114-4
  • L.J.Ausburn,, & F.B.Ausburn, (1978). Cognitive styles: Some information and implications for instructional design. Education Communication and Technology Journal, 26(4), 337–354.
  • N.Barberis,, & R.Thaler, (2003). A survey of behavioural finance. In G.M.Constantinides, M.Harris, & R.Stulz (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of finance (pp. 1053–1128). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • A.Barnea,, H.Cronqvist,, & S.Siegel, (2010). Nature or nurture: What determines investor behavior? Journal of Financial Economics, 98(3), 583–604. doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2010.08.001
  • R.A.Baron, (1998). Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: Why and when enterpreneurs think differently than other people. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 275–294. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(97)00031-1
  • T.S.Bateman,, & J.M.Crant, (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103–118. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379
  • P.R.Beaulieu, (2001). The effects of judgments of new clients’ integrity upon risk judgments, audit evidence, and fees. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 20(2), 85–99. doi:10.2308/aud.2001.20.2.85
  • P.Brewer,, & K.Gross, (2005). Values, framing, and citizens’ thoughts about policy issues: Effects on content and quantity. Political Psychology, 26(6), 929–948. doi:10.1111/pops.2005.26.issue-6
  • J.S.Bruner, (1957). Going beyond the information given. In J.S.Bruner, E.Brunswik, L.Festinger, F.Heider, K.F.Muenzinger, C.E.Osgood, & D.Rapaport (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to cognition (pp. 41–69). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Reprinted in Bruner, J.S. (1973). Beyond the information given, 218–238. New York: Norton.].
  • S.Chaiken, (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752–766. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752
  • S.P.Curley,, J.F.Yates,, & R.A.Abrams, (1986). Psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 230–256. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(86)90018-X
  • W.F.M.De Bondt, (1998). A portrait of the individual investor. European Economic Review, 42, 831–844. doi:10.1016/S0014-2921(98)00009-9
  • W.F.M.De Bondt,, R.M.Mayoral,, & E.Vallelado, (2013). Behavioral decision-making in finance: An overview and assessment of selected research. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting Revista Española De Financiación Y Contabilidad, 42(157), 99–118. doi:10.1080/02102412.2013.10779742
  • N.DiFonzo,, & P.Bordia, (1997). Rumor and prediction: Making sense (but losing dollars) in the stock market. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71(3), 329–353. doi:10.1006/obhd.1997.2724
  • A.Eagly,, & S.Chaiken, (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
  • L.G.Epstein,, & M.Schneider, (2007). Learning under ambiguity. Review of Economic Studies, 74, 1275–1303. doi:10.1111/roes.2007.74.issue-4
  • L.G.Epstein,, & M.Schneider, (2008). Ambiguity, information quality and asset pricing. The Journal of Finance, 63, 197–228. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.2008.01314.x
  • J.French, (1956). A formal theory of social power. Psychological Review, 63, 181–194. doi:10.1037/h0046123
  • J.French,, & B.Raven, (1959). The bases of social power. In D.Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
  • A.Furnham,, & T.Ribchester, (1995). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the concept, its measurement and applications. Current Psychology, 14(3), 179–199. doi:10.1007/BF02686907
  • M.García-Ayuso,, & S.M.Jiménez, (1996). Una reflexión crítica sobre el concepto y el ámbito del análisis financiero y los objetivos de la investigación en material de análisis de la información financiera. Revista Española De Financiación Y Contabilidad, 25(87), 403–427.
  • L.Garlappi,, R.Uppal,, & T.Wang, (2007). Portfolio selection with parameter and model uncertainty: A multi-prior approach. Review of Financial Studies, 20, 41–81. doi:10.1093/rfs/hhl003
  • D.Ghosh,, & M.R.Ray, (1997). Risk, ambiguity, and decision choice: Some additional evidence. Decision Sciences, 28(1), 81–104. doi:10.1111/deci.1997.28.issue-1
  • K.R.Hammond, (1981, February). Principles of organization in intuitive and analytical cognition (Report No. 231). Boulder: University of Colorado, Center for Research on Judgment and Policy.
  • J.Hayes,, & C.W.Allinson, (1994). Cognitive style and its relevance for management practice. British Journal of Management, 5(1), 53–71. doi:10.1111/bjom.1994.5.issue-1
  • J.Hayes,, & C.W.Allinson, (1998). Cognitive style and the theory and practice of individual collective learning in organizations. Human Relations, 51(7), 847–871. doi:10.1177/001872679805100701
  • C.Heath,, & A.Tversky, (1991). Preference and belief: Ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4, 5–28. doi:10.1007/BF00057884
  • D.Hirshleifer, (2001). Investor psychology and asset pricing. TheJournal of Finance, 56, 1533–1597. doi:10.1111/jofi.2001.56.issue-4
  • G.P.Hodgkinson,, & E.Sadler-Smith, (2003). Complex or unitary? A critique and empirical re-assessment of the Allinson-Hayes cognitive style index. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 243–268. doi:10.1348/096317903765913722
  • K.Holden, (2010). The emotions and cognitions behind financial decisions: The implications of theory for practice (pp. 10–14). Madison: Center for Financial Security, University of Wisconsin-Madison Working Paper.
  • C.I.Hovland,, & W.Weiss, (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635–650.
  • R.G.Hunt,, F.J.Krzystofiak,, J.R.Meindl,, & A.M.Yousry, (1989). Cognitive style and decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 436–453. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(89)90018-6
  • D.Kahneman,, & M.W.Riepe, (1998). Aspects of investor psychology. TheJournal of Portfolio Management, 24(4), 52–65. doi:10.3905/jpm.1998.409643
  • N.Karlsson,, G.Loewenstein,, & D.Seppi, (2009). The ‘ostrich effect’: Selective attention to information about investments. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 38(2), 95–115. doi:10.1007/s11166-009-9060-6
  • H.Kelman, (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51–60. doi:10.1177/002200275800200106
  • Z.Kodia,, L.B.Said,, & K.Ghedira, (2010). A study of stock market trading behaviour and social interactions through a multi agent based simulation. Kes-Amsta, 10(2), 302–311.
  • P.Lazarsfeld,, B.Berelson,, & H.Gaudet, (1944). The people’s choice; how the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Duell.
  • Y.Ling,, S.W.Floyd,, & D.C.Baldridge, (2005). Toward a model of issue-selling by subsidiary managers in multinational organizations. Journal of International Business Studies, 36, 637–654. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400166
  • J.W.Lorsch,, & J.J.Morse, (1974). Organizations and their members: A contingency approach. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
  • M.Lovric,, U.Kayman,, & J.Spronk, (2008). A conceptual model of investor behaviour (ERIM Report Series Reference, No. ERS-2008-030-F&A). Rotterdam, Holland: Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM).
  • I.Mahmood,, H.Ahmad,, A.Z.Khan,, & M.Anjum, (2011). Behavioural implications of investors for investments in the stock market. European Journal of Social Sciences, 20(2), 240–247.
  • W.McGuire, (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G.Lindzey & E.Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 136–314). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  • D.L.McLain, (2009). Evidence of the properties of an ambiguity tolerance measure: The multiple stimulus types ambiguity tolerance scale-ii (mstat-ii) 1. Psychological Reports, 105(3), 975–988. doi:10.2466/PR0.105.3.975-988
  • W.Mischel, (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80(4), 252–283. doi:10.1037/h0035002
  • W.Mischel, (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D.Magnusson & N.S.Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333–352). Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Earlbaum Associates.
  • M.Mitchell,, T.Pulvino,, & E.Stafford, (2004). Price pressure around mergers. TheJournal of Finance, 59(1), 31–63. doi:10.1111/jofi.2004.59.issue-1
  • J.W.Mullins,, & L.L.Cummings, (1999). Situational strength–a framework for understanding the role of individuals in initiating proactive strategic change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(6), 462–479. doi:10.1108/09534819910300846
  • M.W.Nelson,, R.Bloomfield,, J.W.Hales,, & R.Libby, (2001). The effect of information strength and weight on behavior in financial markets. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 168–196. doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2950
  • R.W.Norton, (1975). Measurement of ambiguity tolerance. Journal of Personality Assessment, 39(6), 607–619. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa3906_11
  • T.Oberlechner,, & S.Hocking, (2004). Information sources, news, and rumors in financial markets: Insights into the foreign exchange market. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25, 407–424. doi:10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00189-7
  • S.Ozcan,, & M.L.Overby, (2008). A cognitive model of stock market reactions to multi firm alliance announcements. Strategic Organization, 6(4), 435–469. doi:10.1177/1476127008096365
  • R.E.Petty,, D.T.Wegener,, & L.R.Fabrigar, (1997). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 609–647. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.609
  • C.Pornpitakpan, (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243–281. doi:10.1111/jasp.2004.34.issue-2
  • M.Powell,, & D.Ansic, (1997). Gender differences in risk behaviour in financial decision-making: An experimental analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18, 605–628. doi:10.1016/S0167-4870(97)00026-3
  • A.O.Robert,, & C.M.Cox, (2001). The influence of gender on the perception and response to investment risk: The case of professional investors. Journal of Behavioural Finance, 2(1), 29–36.
  • V.Santos Alvarez,, T.Garcia Merino,, & E.Vallelado, (2012). Management perception: The influence of cognitive profile and context factors. CEDE Cuadernos De Economía Y Dirección De La Empresa, 14(2), 9–32.
  • J.O.Santos,, & C.A.Barros, (2011). What determines the financial decision-making: Reason or emotion? RBGN-Revista Brasileira de Gestao de Negocios, 13(38), 7–20.
  • D.L.Schwarzkopf, (2006). Investors’ attitudes toward source credibility. Managerial Auditing Journal, 22(1), 18–33. doi:10.1108/02686900710715620
  • S.Seibert,, J.Crant,, & M.Kraimer, (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 416–427. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.416
  • A.Sloman, (2001). Beyond shallow models of emotion. Cognitive Processing, 2(1), 177–198.
  • P.Slovic, (1972). Psychological study of human judgment: Implications for investment decision making. The Journal of Finance, 27(4), 779–799. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1972.tb01311.x
  • W.H.Starbuck, (1988). Surmounting our human limitations. In R.Quinn & K.Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
  • W.H.Starbuck,, & F.J.Milliken, (1988). Executives’ perceptual filters: What they notice and how they make sense. In D.C.Hambrick (Ed.), The executive effect: Concepts and methods for studying top managers (pp. 35–65). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
  • M.F.Sully De Luque,, & S.M.Sommer, (2000). The impact of culture on feedback-seeking behavior: An integrated model and propositions. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 829–849. doi:10.5465/AMR.2000.3707736
  • J.Thayer, (2011). Determinants of investors’ information acquisition: Credibility and confirmation. The Accounting Review, 86(1), 1–22. doi:10.2308/accr.00000015
  • H.Tutek,, B.Aydogan,, G.Tunc,, & G.Vardar, (2010). The impact of gender differences on financial risk perceptions. Iktisat Isletme Ve Finans, 25(292), 47–70.
  • W.K.Viscusi,, & H.Chesson, (1999). Hopes and fears: The conflicting effects of risk ambiguity. Theory and Decision, 47(2), 157–184. doi:10.1023/A:1005173013606
  • S.Wall, (2008). Personality: What type are you? RDH, 28(5), 78–93.
  • W.H.Warren, (2006). The dynamics of perception and action. Psychological Review, 113(2), 358–389. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.358
  • C.Weber,, J.Dunaway,, & T.Johnson, (2012). It’s all in the name: Source cue ambiguity and the persuasive appeal of campaign ads. Political Behavior, 34, 561–584. doi:10.1007/s11109-011-9172-y
  • M.Westerberg,, J.Sing,, & E.Hackner, (1997). Does the CEO matter? An empirical study of small Swedish firms operating in turbulent environments. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13(3), 251–270. doi:10.1016/S0956-5221(97)00011-0
  • J.F.Yates,, C.M.Jagacinski,, & M.D.Faber, (1978). Evaluation of partially described multi-attribute options. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21(2), 240–251. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(78)90052-1
  • J.Zaller, (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Fonte de datos: Dialnet