Market Volatility vs. Economic Growth: The Role of Cognitive Bias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to investigate the interaction between market volatility, economic growth, and cognitive biases over the period from April 2006 to March 2024. Market volatility and economic growth are critical indicators that influence economic stability and investment behavior. Financial market volatility, defined by abrupt and erratic changes in asset values, can have a big impact on the expansion and stability of the economy. According to conventional economic theory, there should be an inverse relationship between market volatility and economic growth since high volatility can discourage investment and erode trust. Market participants’ cognitive biases are a major aspect that complicates this connection. Due to our innate susceptibility to cognitive biases, including herd mentality, overconfidence, and loss aversion, humans can make poor decisions and increase market volatility. These prejudices frequently cause investors to behave erratically and irrationally, departing from reasonable expectations and causing inefficiencies in the market. Cognitive biases have the capacity to sustain feedback loops, which heighten market turbulence and may hinder economic expansion. Similarly, cognitive biases have the potential to cause investors to misread economic indicators or ignore important details, which would increase volatility. This study uses the generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (GARCH) model on GDP growth data from the US, the UK, and India, alongside S&P 500, FTSE 100, and NIFTY 50 data sourced from Bloomberg, to examine evidence of these biases. The results show evidence of the predictive nature of market fluctuations on economic performance across the markets and highlight the substantial effects of cognitive biases on market volatility, disregarding economic fundamentals and growth, emphasizing the necessity of considering psychological factors in financial market analyses and developing strategies to mitigate their adverse effects.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".