Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of the present study is to conduct a bibliometric analysis on the association between the themes ‘behavioral finance’ and ‘financial and managerial decision making’, and the cognitive biases ‘overconfidence’, ‘anchoring effect’ and ‘confirmation bias’. The search for articles was performed at the Web of Science database using EndNote® as reference management software, and CiteSpace (Chen in Proc Natl Acad Sci 101(suppl 1):5303–5310, 2004; J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 57(3):359–377, 2006) as bibliometric analysis software. The search led to 889 articles published between 1990 and 2016, and the results have shown that the number of researches relating overconfidence, anchoring and confirmation biases to behavioral finances has been growing throughout time, mainly from 2008 on. Besides, the results have confirmed the importance of Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman to this research field. The bias presenting the closest proximity to the behavioral finance field in the present study was overconfidence. The confirmation bias was the one presenting the smallest number of publications and the slightest relation to this study field, fact that opens a promising research field.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahmed, A. S., & Duellman, S. (2013). Managerial overconfidence and accounting conservatism. Journal Of Accounting Research, 51(1), 1–30. doi:10.1111/j.1475-679X.2012.00467.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allahverdyan, A. E., & Galstyan, A. (2014). Opinion dynamics with confirmation bias. PLoS ONE. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0099557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allais, M. (1953). Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque: Critique des postulats et axiomes de l’école américaine. Econometrica, 21, 503–546.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Armenakis, A. A., Mossholder, K. W., & Harris, S. G. (1990). Diagnostic bias in organizational consultation. Omega-International Journal of Management Science, 18(6), 563–572. doi:10.1016/0305-0483(90)90048-e.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber, B. M., & Odean, T. (2001). Boys will be boys: Gender, overconfidence, and common stock investment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 261–292. doi:10.1162/003355301556400.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Baumann, A. O., Deber, R. B., & Thompson, G. G. (1991). Overconfidence among physicians and nurses—the micro-certainty, macro-uncertainty phenomenon. Social Science and Medicine, 32(2), 167–174. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(91)90057-j.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bechara, A. (2004). The role of emotion in decision-making: Evidence from neurological patients with orbitofrontal damage. Brain and Cognition, 55(1), 30–40. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2003.04.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birnberg, J. G., & Ganguly, A. R. (2012). Is neuroaccounting waiting in the wings? An essay. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(1), 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.aos.2011.11.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burmeister, K., & Schade, C. (2007). Are entrepreneurs’ decisions more biased? An experimental investigation of the susceptibility to status quo bias. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(3), 340–362. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.04.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham, T. C. (2007). High-testosterone men reject low ultimatum game offers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 274(1623), 2327–2330. doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.0546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busenitz, L. W., & Barney, J. B. (1997). Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(1), 9–30. doi:10.1016/s0883-9026(96)00003-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C. F., & Loewenstein, G. (2004). Behavioral economics: Past, present, future. In C. F. Camerer, G. Loewenstein, & M. Rabin (Eds.), Advances in behavioral economics (pp. 3–51). New York: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C., & Lovallo, D. (1999). Overconfidence and excess entry: An experimental approach. American Economic Review, 89(1), 306–318. doi:10.1257/aer.89.1.306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caputo, A. (2014). Relevant information, personality traits and anchoring effect. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 13(1), 62–76. doi:10.1504/IJMDM.2014.058470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, K. D., & Ji, F. X. (2011). Citing and building on meta-analytic findings: A review and recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 14(4), 696–717. doi:10.1177/1094428110384272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (1999). Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(2), 115–153. doi:10.1006/obhd.1999.2841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chau, P. Y. K., & Hu, P. J. (2002). Examining a model of information technology acceptance by individual professionals: An exploratory study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(4), 191–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. (2004). Searching for intellectual turning points: Progressive knowledge domain visualization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(suppl 1), 5303–5310. doi:10.1073/pnas.0307513100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359–377. doi:10.1002/asi.20317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, D. F., & Carvalho, Fd M. (2016). Relação entre gerenciamento de resultado e governança corporativa: construindo um referencial teórico a partir de uma revisão sistemática da literatura. ForScience, 4(1), 20–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Da Silva, S., Moreira, B., & Da Costa Jr, N. (2015). Handedness and digit ratio predict overconfidence in cognitive and motor skill tasks in a sample of preschoolers. Economics Bulletin, 35(2), 1087–1097.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2001). Putting adjustment sack in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: Differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors. Psychological Science, 12(5), 391–396. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2006). The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic: Why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychological Science, 17(4), 311–318. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01704.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fellner, G., & Krügel, S. (2012). Judgmental overconfidence: Three measures, one bias? Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(1), 142–154. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2011.07.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1977). Knowing with certainty—appropriateness of extreme confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 3(4), 552–564. doi:10.1037//0096-1523.3.4.552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, D. (1986). Recent research on selective exposure to information. In b leonard (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 41–80). Cambridge: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A., & Boo, H. C. (2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40(1), 35–42. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2010.10.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García, M. J. R. (2013). Financial education and behavioral finance: New insights into the role of information in financial decisions. Journal of Economic Surveys, 27(2), 297–315. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6419.2011.00705.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, D., Jacowitz, K. E., Kahneman, D., & McFadden, D. (1998). Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods. Resource and Energy Economics, 20(2), 85–116. doi:10.1016/S0928-7655(97)00031-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhalgh, T. (1997). Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta-analyses). BMJ: British Medical Journal, 315(7109), 665–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habib, A., & Hossain, M. (2013). CEO/CFO characteristics and financial reporting quality: A review. Research in Accounting Regulation, 25(1), 88–100. doi:10.1016/j.racreg.2012.11.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilary, G., & Hsu, C. (2011). Endogenous overconfidence in managerial forecasts. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 51(3), 300–313. doi:10.1016/j.jacceco.2011.01.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, C. L., & Chiang, C. H. (2015). The financial crisis research: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 105(1), 161–177. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1698-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacowitz, K. E., & Kahneman, D. (1995). Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(11), 1161–1166. doi:10.1177/01461672952111004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonas, E., Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., & Thelen, N. (2001). Confirmation bias in sequential information search after preliminary decisions: An expansion of dissonance theoretical research on selective exposure to information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(4), 557–571. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.80.4.557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (1992). Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51(2), 296–312. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(92)90015-Y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise a failure to disagree. American Psychologist, 64(6), 515–526. doi:10.1037/a0016755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Lovallo, D. (1993). Timid choices and bold forecasts—a cognitive perspective on risk-taking. Management Science, 39(1), 17–31. doi:10.1287/mnsc.39.1.17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Smith, V. (2002). Foundations of behavioral and experimental economics. Advanced Information on the Prize in Economic Sciences 2002, 1, 1–24. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/2002/ advanced-economicsciences2002.pdf. Accessed 25 June 2016.

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 430–454. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 47(2), 263–292. doi:10.2307/1914185.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1996). On the reality of cognitive illusions. Psychological Review, 103(3), 582–591. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenning, P., & Plassmann, H. (2005). NeuroEconomics: An overview from an economic perspective. Brain Research Bulletin, 67(5), 343–354. doi:10.1016/j.brainresbull.2005.07.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, C. (2016). Web of Science: 1 billion cited references and counting. http://stateofinnovation.thomsonreuters.com/web-of-science-1-billion-cited-references-and-counting. Accessed 25 June 2016.

  • Klayman, J., & Ha, Y. W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis-testing. Psychological Review, 94(2), 211–228. doi:10.1037//0033-295x.94.2.211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klayman, J., Soll, J. B., Gonzalez-Vallejo, C., & Barlas, S. (1999). Overconfidence: It depends on how, what, and whom you ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(3), 216–247. doi:10.1006/obhd.1999.2847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1980). Reasons for confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Learning and Memory, 6(2), 107–118. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.6.2.107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, S., & Goyal, N. (2015). Behavioural biases in investment decision making—a systematic literature review. Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, 7(1), 88–108. doi:10.1108/QRFM-07-2014-0022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.108.3.480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., & Phillips, L. D. (1982). Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 306–334). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, W., Gu, M., Hu, G., Li, C., Liao, H., Tang, L., et al. (2014). Profile of developments in biomass-based bioenergy research: a 20-year perspective. Scientometrics, 99(2), 507–521. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1152-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization—effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig, S., & Nafziger, J. (2011). Beliefs about overconfidence. Theory and Decision, 70(4), 475–500. doi:10.1007/s11238-010-9199-2.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Malmendier, U., & Tate, G. (2005). CEO overconfidence and corporate investment. Journal of Finance, 60(6), 2661–2700. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00813.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merkle, C., & Weber, M. (2011). True overconfidence: The inability of rational information processing to account for apparent overconfidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 262–271. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.07.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, D. A., & Healy, P. J. (2008). The trouble with overconfidence. Psychological Review, 115(2), 502. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999). Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(2), 136–164. doi:10.1006/jesp.1998.1364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mussweiler, T., Strack, F., & Pfeiffer, T. (2000). Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: Considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1142–1150. doi:10.1177/01461672002611010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1987). Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39(1), 84–97. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(87)90046-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oskamp, S. (1965). Overconfidence in case-study judgments. Journal of consulting psychology, 29(3), 261–265. doi:10.1037/h0022125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, J., Konana, P., Gu, B., Kumar, A., & Raghunathan, R. (2013). Information valuation and confirmation bias in virtual communities: Evidence from stock message boards. Information Systems Research, 24(4), 1050–1067. doi:10.1287/isre.2013.0492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence—tests of the story model for juror decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2), 189–206. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.62.2.189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peón, D., Antelo, M., & Calvo, A. (2015). Overconfidence and risk seeking in credit markets: an experimental game. Review of Managerial Science. doi:10.1007/s11846-015-0166-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pompian, M. (2012). Behavioral finance and wealth management: How to build optimal portfolios that account for investor biases (Vol. 667). New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Prado, J. W., Alcantara, V. D., Carvalho, F. D., Vieira, K. C., Machado, L. K. C., & Tonelli, D. F. (2016). Multivariate analysis of credit risk and bankruptcy research data: A bibliometric study involving different knowledge fields (1968–2014). Scientometrics, 106(3), 1007–1029. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1829-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preuschoff, K., Bossaerts, P., & Quartz, S. R. (2006). Neural differentiation of expected reward and risk in human subcortical structures. Neuron, 51(3), 381–390. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2006.06.024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, P. C., & Stone, E. R. (2004). Intuitive evaluation of likelihood judgment producers: Evidence for a confidence heuristic. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17(1), 39–57. doi:10.1002/bdm.460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Remmerswaal, D., Huijding, J., Bouwmeester, S., Brouwer, M., & Muris, P. (2014). Cognitive bias in action: Evidence for a reciprocal relation between confirmation bias and fear in children. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 45(1), 26–32. doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2013.07.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo, J. E., & Schoemaker, P. J. (1992). Managing overconfidence. Sloan Management Review, 33(2), 7–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez-Riofrio, A. M., Guerras-Martin, L. A., & Forcadell, F. J. (2015). Business portfolio restructuring: A comprehensive bibliometric review. Scientometrics, 102(3), 1921–1950. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1495-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schade, C., & Koellinger, P. (2007). Heuristics, biases, and the behavior of entrepreneurs. In M. Minniti (Ed.), Entrepreneurship: The engin of growth (Vol. 1, pp. 41–63). Westport: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Multiple scenario development—its conceptual and behavioral foundation. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 193–213. doi:10.1002/smj.4250140304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1995). Scenario planning—a tool for strategic thinking. Sloan Management Review, 36(2), 25–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., Fago, K., & Kici, G. (1999). Selective information search acid group heterogeneity: The influence of various forms of group heterogeneity on self-confirming mechanisms in decision making. Gruppendynamik-Zeitschrift Fur Angewandte Sozialpsychologie, 30(2), 161–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., Luthgens, C., & Moscovici, S. (2000). Biased information search in group decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 655–669. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.78.4.655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweitzer, M. E., & Cachon, G. P. (2000). Decision bias in the newsvendor problem with a known demand distribution: Experimental evidence. Management Science, 46(3), 404–420. doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.3.404.12070.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Schwind, C., Buder, J., Cress, U., & Hesse, F. W. (2012). Preference-inconsistent recommendations: An effective approach for reducing confirmation bias and stimulating divergent thinking? Computers & Education, 58(2), 787–796. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, T., & Boe, W. J. (1991). Confidence and accuracy in judgments using computer displayed information. Behaviour & Information Technology, 10(1), 53–64. doi:10.1080/01449299108924271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118. doi:10.2307/1884852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129. doi:10.1037/h0042769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, M., Houghton, S. M., & Aquino, K. (2000). Cognitive, biases, risk perception and venture formation: How individuals decide to start companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(2), 113–134. doi:10.1016/s0883-9026(98)00003-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Fischoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1982). Facts versus fears. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 463–489). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. (2008). Cognitive psychology. Boston: Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. N. (1994). Overconfidence in initial self-efficacy judgments—effects on decision-processes and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59(3), 452–474. doi:10.1006/obhd.1994.1069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 437–446. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Summerfield, C., & Tsetsos, K. (2015). Do humans make good decisions? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(1), 27–34. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2014.11.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tague-Sutcliffe, J. (1992). An introduction to informetrics. Information Processing and Management, 28(1), 1–3. doi:10.1016/0306-4573(92)90087-G.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. (1975). A critique of expected utility theory: Descriptive and normative considerations. Erkenntnis, 9(2), 163–173. doi:10.1007/BF00226380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207–232. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). The framing of decisions and the evaluation of prospects. In G. J. W. D. Ruth Barcan Marcus & W. Paul (Eds.), Studies in logic and the foundations of mathematics (Vol. 114, pp. 503–520). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323. doi:10.1007/BF00122574.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12(3), 129–140. doi:10.1080/17470216008416717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, W., & Ju, X. (2012). The research of investment decision-making behavior model under imperfect rationality. Journal of Convergence Information Technology, 7(14), 521–527. doi:10.4156/jcit.vol7.issue14.60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics and Administration, UFLA – Federal University of Lavras, Caixa Postal 3037, Lavras, MG, CEP 37200-000, Brazil

    Daniel Fonseca Costa, Francisval de Melo Carvalho & José Willer do Prado

  2. IFMG – Federal Institute of Minas Gerais, Formiga, MG, CEP 35.570-000, Brazil

    Daniel Fonseca Costa & Bruno César de Melo Moreira

Authors
  1. Daniel Fonseca Costa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francisval de Melo Carvalho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bruno César de Melo Moreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. José Willer do Prado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Fonseca Costa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Costa, D.F., de Melo Carvalho, F., de Melo Moreira, B.C. et al. Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias. Scientometrics 111, 1775–1799 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2371-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2371-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation