Analyzing the interrelations among investors’ behavioral biases using an integrated DANP method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research investigates the relationships between investors’ behavioral biases and compares their relative importance. For this purpose, a survey is conducted, and analytical methods are used. The sample for this study has been 512 individual investors of the Tehran Stock Exchange who completed an online questionnaire. The respondents replied about their behavior in different situations to analyze the prevalence of asymmetric discounting, mental accounting, shifting risk preference, loss aversion, regret aversion, overconfidence, proxy decision making, ambiguity aversion bias, anchoring, and herd behavior as significant fields of behavioral biases in their investment decisions. The data is analyzed using two different analytical techniques. A model based on structural equations is designed and tested to analyze the relations between these fields. Another integrated method, the DEMATEL-based analytic network process, is also used to prioritize and rank these behavioral biases. Finally, the results are compared and confirmed by each other. Analyzing the results proves the existence of 19 positive and statistically significant relations between these fields. Thus, an increase or decrease in the intensity of a particular field of behavioral biases in one’s decisions significantly affects the intensity of other fields. The present study finds that shifting risk preference, anchoring, loss aversion, and regret aversion are the most important fields of behavioral biases based on their prevalence among investors and their correlations with other biases.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".