Factors Affecting the Disposition Effect in Tehran Stock Market
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the significance and perceived inevitability of disposition effect and its impact on investment decisions, we investigate factors affecting the disposition effect in the Tehran Stock Exchange. Four hypotheses were developed and the data used in the study were collected through availability sampling. One-sample t-test, two-sample t-test and one-way ANOVA were run to analyze the data while Pearson correlation test and multiple regressions were used to assess relationships among variables in question. The results of the analyses indicate that overconfidence and mental accounting were not significantly correlated with disposition effect. Regret aversion had a positive relationship with disposition effect while self control was negatively associated. It was also observed that there was a negative relationship between participants’ level of education and their disposition effect indicating that the higher the level of education, the less the rate of disposition effect. Furthermore, the results of the study show that males enjoy a higher level of overconfidence than females, and 20 to 30 year-old age groups displayed much overconfidence than other age groups.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".