The influence of upward social comparison on retail trading behaviour

Online investing is often facilitated by digital platforms, where the information of peer top performers can be widely accessible and distributed. However, the influence of such information on retail investors' psychology, their trading behaviour and potential risks they may be prone to is poorly understood. We investigate the impact of upward social comparison on risk-taking, trading activity and investor satisfaction using a tailored experiment with 807 experienced retail investors trading on a dynamically evolving simulated stock market, designed to systematically measure various facets of trading activity. We find that investors presented with an upward social comparison take more risk and trade more actively, and they report significantly lower satisfaction with their own performance. Our findings demonstrate the pitfalls of modern investment platforms with peer information and social trading. The broad implications of this study also provide guidelines for improving retail investor satisfaction and protection.

Nomen est omen? How and when company name fluency affects return expectations

Investors perceive stocks of companies with fluent names as more profitable. This perception may result from two different channels: a direct, non-deliberate affect toward fluent names or a deliberate interpretation of fluent names as a signal for company quality. We use preregistered experiments to disentangle these channels and test their limitations. Our results indicate the existence of a significant non-deliberate fluency effect, while the deliberate fluency effect can be activated and deactivated in boundary cases. Both effects are consistent across different groups of participants. However, whereas the fluency effect is strong in isolation, it has limitations when investors are confronted with additional information about the stock.

Competition and moral behavior: A meta-analysis of forty-five crowd-sourced experimental designs

Does competition affect moral behavior? This fundamental question has been debated among leading scholars for centuries, and more recently, it has been tested in experimental studies yielding a body of rather inconclusive empirical evidence. A potential source of ambivalent empirical results on the same hypothesis is design heterogeneity-variation in true effect sizes across various reasonable experimental research protocols. To provide further evidence on whether competition affects moral behavior and to examine whether the generalizability of a single experimental study is jeopardized by design heterogeneity, we invited independent research teams to contribute experimental designs to a crowd-sourced project. In a large-scale online data collection, 18,123 experimental participants were randomly allocated to 45 randomly selected experimental designs out of 95 submitted designs. We find a small adverse effect of competition on moral behavior in a meta-analysis of the pooled data. The crowd-sourced design of our study allows for a clean identification and estimation of the variation in effect sizes above and beyond what could be expected due to sampling variance. We find substantial design heterogeneity-estimated to be about 1.6 times as large as the average standard error of effect size estimates of the 45 research designs-indicating that the informativeness and generalizability of results based on a single experimental design are limited. Drawing strong conclusions about the underlying hypotheses in the presence of substantive design heterogeneity requires moving toward much larger data collections on various experimental designs testing the same hypothesis.