Even though the provision of equal opportunities for men and women has been a priority in many countries, large gender differences prevail in competitive high-ranking positions. Suggested explanations include discrimination and differences in preferences and human capital. In this paper we present experimental evidence in support of an additional factor: women may be less effective than men in competitive environments, even if they are able to perform similarly in noncompetitive environments. In a laboratory experiment we observe, as we increase the competitiveness of the environment, a signi�cant increase in performance for men, but not for women. This results in a signi�cant gender gap in performance in tournaments, while there is no gap when participants are paid according to piece rate. This effect is stronger when women have to compete against men than in single-sex competitive environments: this suggests that women may be able to perform in competitive environments per se. I.

This article reviews the now extensive research literature addressing the impact of accountability on a wide range of social judgments and choices. It focuses on 4 issues: (a) What impact do various accountability ground rules have on thoughts, feelings, and action? (b) Under what conditions will accountability attenuate, have no effect on, or amplify cognitive biases? (c) Does accountability alter how people think or merely what people say they think? and (d) What goals do accountable decision makers seek to achieve? In addition, this review explores the broader implications of accountability research. It highlights the utility of treating thought as a process of internalized dialogue; the importance of documenting social and institutional boundary conditions on putative cognitive biases; and the potential to craft empirical answers to such applied problems as how to structure accountability relationships in organizations. Accountability is a modern buzzword. In education (Fairchild &

The study of scientific discovery—where do new ideas come from?—has long been denigrated by philosophers as irrelevant to analyzing the growth of scientific knowledge. In particular, little is known about how cognitive theories are discovered, and neither the classical accounts of discovery as either probabilistic induction (e.g., Reichenbach, 1938) or lucky guesses (e.g., Popper, 1959), nor the stock anecdotes about sudden “eureka ” moments deepen the insight into discovery. A heuristics approach is taken in this review, where heuristics are understood as strategies of discovery less general than a supposed unique logic of discovery but more general than lucky guesses. This article deals with how scientists’ tools shape theories of mind, in particular with how methods of statistical inference have turned into metaphors of mind. The tools-to-theories heuristic explains the emergence of a broad range of cognitive theories, from the cognitive revolution of the 1960s up to the present, and it can be used to detect both limitations and new lines of development in current cognitive theories that investigate the mind as an “intuitive statistician.” Scientific inquiry can be viewed as “an ocean, continuous everywhere and without a break or division ” (Leibniz, 1690/1951, p. 73). Hans Reichenbach (1938) nonetheless divided this ocean into two great seas, the context of discovery and the context of justification. Philosophers, logicians,

The relative susceptibility of individuals and groups to systematic judgmental biases is considered. An overview of the relevant empirical literature reveals no clear or general pattern. However, a theoretical analysis employing J. H. Davis's (1973) social decision scheme (SDS) model reveals that the relative magnitude of individual and group bias depends upon several factors, including group size, initial individual judgment, the magnitude of bias among individuals, the type of bias, and most of all, the group-judgment process. It is concluded that there can be no simple answer to the question, "Which are more biased, individuals or groups?, " but the SDS model offers a framework for specifying some of the conditions under which individuals are both more and less biased than groups. A great deal of research in social and cognitive psychology has been devoted to demonstrating what is probably an uncontroversial proposition: that human judgment is imperfect. What makes this work interesting and useful is that such imperfections often constitute more than random fluctuations around "rational, " prescribed, or ideal judgments. Rather, humans consistently exhibit systematic biases in their judgments. Some of

We examine changes in the stock trading behavior and investment performance of 1,607 investors who switch from phone based to online trading during the period 1992 to 1995. We document that young men who are active traders with high incomes and a preference for investing in small growth stocks with high market risk are more likely to switch to online trading. We also find that those who switch to online trading experience unusually strong performance prior to going online, beating the market by more than two percent annually. After going online, they trade more actively, more speculatively, and less profitably than before-- lagging the market by more than three percent annually. A rational response to reductions in market frictions (lower trading costs, improved execution speed, and greater ease of access) does not explain these findings. The increase in trading and reduction in performance of online investors can be explained by overconfidence augmented by self-attribution bias, the illusion of knowledge, and the illusion of control.

A longstanding controversy in economics and finance is whether financial markets are governed by rational forces or by emotional responses. We study the importance of emotion in the decisionmaking process of professional securities traders by measuring their physiological characteristics, e.g., skin conductance, blood volume pulse, etc., during live trading sessions while simultaneously capturing real-time prices from which market events can be detected. In a sample of 10 traders, we find statistically significant differences in mean electrodermal responses during transient market events relative to no-event control periods, and statistically significant mean changes in cardiovascular variables during periods of heightened market volatility relative to normal-volatility control periods. We also observe significant differences in these physiological response across the 10 traders which may be systematically related to the traders’ levels of experience.

Elicitation is a key task for subjectivist Bayesians. While skeptics hold that it cannot (or perhaps should not) be done, in practice it brings statisticians closer to their clients and subjectmatter-expert colleagues. This paper reviews the state-of-the-art, reflecting the experience of statisticians informed by the fruits of a long line of psychological research into how people represent uncertain information cognitively, and how they respond to questions about that information. In a discussion of the elicitation process, the first issue to address is what it means for an elicitation to be successful, i.e. what criteria should be employed? Our answer is that a successful elicitation faithfully represents the opinion of the person being elicited. It is not necessarily “true ” in some objectivistic sense, and cannot be judged that way. We see elicitation as simply part of the process of statistical modeling. Indeed in a hierarchical model it is ambiguous at which point the likelihood ends and the prior begins. Thus the same kinds of judgment that inform statistical modeling in general also inform elicitation of prior distributions.

The 30th anniversary of The Journal of Portfolio Management is a milestone in the rich intellectual history of modern finance, firmly establishing the relevance of quantitative models and scientific inquiry in the practice of financial management. One of the most enduring ideas from this intellectual history is the Efficient Markets Hypothesis (EMH), a deceptively simple notion that has become a lightning rod for its disciples and the proponents of behavioral economics and finance. In its purest form, the EMH obviates active portfolio management, calling into question the very motivation for portfolio research. It is only fitting that we revisit this groundbreaking idea after three very successful decades of this Journal. In this article, I review the current state of the controversy surrounding the EMH and propose a new perspective that reconciles the two opposing schools of thought. The proposed reconciliation, which I call the Adaptive Markets Hypothesis (AMH), is based on an evolutionary approach to economic interactions, as well as some recent research in the cognitive neurosciences that has been transforming and revitalizing the intersection of psychology and economics. Although some of these ideas have not yet been fully articulated within a rigorous quantitative framework, long time students of the EMH and seasoned practitioners will no doubt recognize immediately the possibilities generated by this new perspective. Only time will tell whether its potential will be fulfilled. I begin with a brief review of the classic version of the EMH, and then summarize the most significant criticisms leveled against it by psychologists and behavioral economists. I argue that the sources of this controversy can

Consumer knowledge is seldom complete or errorless. Therefore, the self-assessed validity of knowledge and consequent knowledge calibration (i.e., the correspondence between self-assessed and actual validity) is an important issue for the study of consumer decision making. In this article we describe methods and models used in calibration research. We then review a wide variety of empirical results indicating that high levels of calibration are achieved rarely, moderate levels that include some degree of systematic bias are the norm, and confidence and accuracy are sometimes completely uncorrelated. Finally, we examine the explanations of miscalibration and offer suggestions for future research. Consumers are overconfident—they think they know more than they actually do. Our simple goal is to evaluate this proposition. Ultimately, we conclude that overconfidence is indeed a robust phenomenon and can be adopted by researchers as a stylized fact about human cognition; however, there are critical qualifications and

The field of modern financial economics assumes that people behave with extreme rationality, but they do not. Furthermore, people’s deviations from rationality are often systematic. Behavioral finance relaxes the traditional assumptions of financial economics by incorporating these observable, systematic, and very human departures from rationality into standard models of financial markets. We highlight two common mistakes investors make: excessive trading and the tendency to disproportionately hold on to losing investments while selling winners. We argue that these systematic biases have their origins in human psychology. The tendency for human beings to be overconfident causes the first bias in investors, and the human desire to avoid regret prompts the second. There is one important caveat to the notion that we live in a new economy, and that is human psychology... which appears essentially immutable.