Influence of Overconfidence and Loss Aversion Biases on Investment Decision: The Mediating Effect of Risk Tolerance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to examine the effects of overconfidence and loss aversion on Investing behavior with the mediating role of risk tolerance. Employing a quantitative methodology, data was collected using a structured questionnaire featuring multiple choice and Likert scale questions. Convenience sampling was used to gather responses, and the data was analyzed through multiple regression techniques. The mediating effect of risk tolerance was measured using Andrew F. Hayes’ Process V4.2 Macro. The study found that risk tolerance partially mediates the relationship between overconfidence and investment decision-making behavior, with both direct and indirect effects being statistically significant. Similarly, the study found that loss aversion has a statistically insignificant direct effect on investment decisions, while its indirect effect through risk tolerance is statistically significant. The study discloses that risk tolerance partially mediates the relationship between overconfidence and investment decision behavior, while it fully mediates the relationship between loss aversion and investment decision making behavior. Risk tolerance significantly influences investment decisions, influencing both overconfidence and loss aversion, while loss aversion’s influence is partially explained by risk tolerance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".