Özge DİNÇ CAVLAK, Abdullah Süreyya ERSOY

Düşünme Stillerinin Aşırı Öz Güven Yanlılığı Üzerindeki Etkisinde Risk Tutumunun Düzenleyici Rolü

Amaç – Risk ve belirsizlik altında karar verme süreçlerinde rastlanan en önemli bilişsel yanlılıklardan biri olarak karşımıza çıkan aşırı öz güven yanlılığının belirleyicilerinin ortaya konması son derece büyük önem arz etmektedir. Bu doğrultuda mevcut çalışma, sezgisel ve mantıksal düşünme olarak kavramsallaştırılan düşünme stillerinin, aşırı öz güven yanlılığı üzerindeki etkilerini ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Bunun yanı sıra, risk tutumunun düşünme stilleri ile aşırı öz güven yanlılığı ilişkisi üzerindeki düzenleyici rolünün incelenmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Yöntem – Mevcut çalışmada, Yapısal Eşitlik Modeli kullanılarak, sezgisel ve mantıksal düşünme boyutlarından oluşan düşünme stillerinin aşırı öz güven yanlılığı üzerindeki etkileri AMOS paket programı kullanılarak incelenmiştir. Risk tutumunun düşünme stilleri ile aşırı öz güven yanlılığı ilişkisi üzerindeki düzenleyici rolü, SPSS Process v6 paket programı kullanılarak test edilmiştir. Bu kapsamda, anket yöntemi uygulanmıştır. Bulgular – Araştırmanın bulguları, sezgisel ve mantıksal düşünme olarak belirlenen düşünme stillerinin, aşırı öz güven yanlılığını %60,5 (R2 = 0,605) oranında açıkladığını ortaya koymaktadır. Sezgisel düşünmenin aşırı öz güven üzerinde oldukça güçlü, anlamlı ve pozitif bir etkisi bulunurken; mantıksal düşünmenin aşırı öz güven üzerinde negatif yönlü ve anlamlı bir etkisinin bulunduğu görülmektedir. Ayrıca, risk tutumunun, hem sezgisel düşünme ile aşırı öz güven arasındaki ilişki üzerinde hem de mantıksal düşünme ile aşırı öz güven arasındaki ilişki üzerinde anlamlı bir rolü olduğu görülmektedir. Tartışma – Mevcut çalışma, bireylerin risk ve belirsizlik altında karar verme süreçlerinde bilişsel mekanizmaların oldukça önemli bir rolü olduğunu ve sezgisel yargılara dayalı kararlar verdiklerini ortaya koymaktadır. Karar vericilerin söz konusu bilişsel süreçlerin farkında olmaları, piyasada işlem yapma ya da yeni bir ürünü pazara sürme gibi önemli kararlar alınırken oldukça büyük önem arz edecektir.

The Moderator Role of Risk Attitude in the Effect of Thinking Styles on Overconfidence Bias

Purpose – It is extremely important to reveal the determinants of overconfidence bias, which is one of the most important cognitive biases encountered in the decision-making processes under risk and uncertainty. In this direction, the present study aims to reveal the effects of thinking styles conceptualized as intuitive and rational thinking on overconfidence bias. In addition, it is aimed to examine the moderator role of risk attitude on the relationship between thinking styles and overconfidence bias. Design/Methodology/Approach – In the study, the effects of thinking styles consisting of intuitive and rational thinking dimensions overconfidence bias were examined using the Structural Equation Model using the AMOS package program. The moderator role of risk attitude on the relationship between thinking styles and overconfidence bias was tested using the SPSS Process v6 package program. In this context, the survey method was applied. Findings – The findings of the study reveal that thinking styles determined as intuitive and rational thinking explain overconfidence bias at a rate of 60.5% (R2 = 0.605). While intuitive thinking has a very strong, significant, and positive effect on overconfidence; On the other hand, it is seen that rational thinking has a negative and significant effect on overconfidence. In addition, risk attitude has a significant role both in the relationship between intuitive thinking and overconfidence and the relationship between rational thinking and overconfidence. Discussion – The study reveals that cognitive mechanisms play a crucial role in individuals' decisionmaking processes under risk and uncertainty, and they make decisions based on intuitive judgments. The decision makers' awareness of these cognitive processes will be of great importance when making important decisions such as trading in the market or launching a new product.

PDF

___

Allen W. D., & Evans, D. A. (2005) Bidding and Overconfidence in Experimental Financial Markets. The Journal of Behavioral Finance, 6(3), 108-120.
Barberis, N., Shleifer A., & Vishny, R. (1998). A Model of Investor Sentiment. Journal of Financial Economics, 49, 307-343.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173.
Broihanne, M. H., Merli, M., & Roger, P. (2014). Overconfidence, risk perception and the risk-taking behavior of finance professionals. Finance Research Letters, 11(2), 64-73.
Byrne, B. M. (1994). Testing for the factorial validity, replication, and invariance of a measuring instrument: A paradigmatic application based on the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 29(3), 289-311.
Camerer, C., & Lovallo, D. (1999). Overconfidence and excess entry: An experimental approach. American Economic Review, 89(1), 306-318.
Chang, C., Jiang J., & Kimb, K. A. (2009). A Test of the Representativeness Bias Effect on Stock Prices: A Study of Super Bowl Commercial Likeability. Economics Letters, 103(1), 49-51.
De Bondt, W. F., & Thaler, R. H. (1995). Financial decision-making in markets and firms: A behavioral perspective. Handbooks in operations research and management science, 9, 385-410.
Denes-Raj, V., & Epstein, S. (1994). Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: When people behave against their better judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 819.
Epstein, S. (1994). An integration of the cognitive and psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709-724.
Epstein, S., Lipson, A., Holstein, C, & Huh, E. (1992). Irrational reactions to negative outcomes: Evidence for two conceptual systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 328-339.
Fischhoff, B., Slovic P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1977). Knowing with Certainty: The Appropriateness of Extreme Confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3(4), 552-564.
Gigerenzer, G., Hoffrage, U., & Kleinbölting, H. (1991). Probabilistic mental models: a Brunswikian theory of confidence. Psychological Review, 98(4), 506.
Gürbüz, S., & Şahin, F. (2014). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık, 271.
Glaser, M., & Weber, M. (2007). Overconfidence and trading volume. The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, 32(1), 1-36.
Hair, J. F., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2009). Multivariate data analysis. N.J: Prentice Hall.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling.
Hillson, D., & Murray-Webster, R. (2004). Understanding and managing risk attitude. In Proceedings of 7th Annual Risk Conference, held in London, UK (Vol. 26).
Hirshleifer, D. (2001). Investor Psychology and Asset Pricing. The Journal of Finance, 56(4), 1533-1597.
Johnson, D. D. (2004). Overconfidence and war. Harvard University Press.
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193-206.
Kieffer, K. M. (1998). Orthogonal versus Oblique Factor Rotation: A Review of the Literature regarding the Pros and Cons. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Kleitman, S., & Stankov, L. (2007). Self-confidence and metacognitive processes. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(2), 161-173.
Lichtenstein, S., & Fischoff, B. (1977). Calibration of probabilities: Do those who know more also know more about how much they know. Organizational and Human Performance, 20, 159-183.
Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., & Phillips, L. D. (1982). Calibration of probabilities: the state of the art to 1980.
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. In Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., Tversky, A. (Eds.), Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge University Press, p. 306-334.
Malmendier, U., & Tate, G. (2005). CEO overconfidence and corporate investment. The journal of finance, 60(6), 2661-2700.
Michailova, J. (2010). Development of the overconfidence measurement instrument for the economic experiment. MPRA paper 26384, Christian Albrechts University of Kiel, Germany.
Murad, Z., Sefton, M., & Starmer, C. (2016). How do risk attitudes affect measured confidence?. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 52(1), 21-46.
Neale, M. A., & Bazerman, M. H. (1985). The effects of framing and negotiator overconfidence on bargaining behaviors and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 34-49.
Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment.
Odean, T. (1998). Volume Volatility, Price, and Profit when All Traders are above Average. The Journal of Finance, 53(6), 1887-1934.
Odean, T. (1999). Do investors trade too much?. American Economic Review, 89(5), 1279-1298.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Collins, K. M. (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. Qualitative Report, 12(2), 281-316.
Özdamar, K. (2003). Modern bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Eskişehir: Kaan Kitabevi.
Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717-731.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891.
Pulford, B. D. (1996). Overconfidence in human judgement (Doctoral dissertation, University of Leicester).
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173-220). Academic Press.
Russo, J. E., & Schoemaker, P. J. (1992). Managing overconfidence. Sloan Management Review, 33(2), 7-17.
Russo, J. E., & Schoemaker, P. J. (2016). Overconfidence, Palgrave Macmillan.
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99-118.
Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129.
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645-665.
Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal Eşitlik Modelleri: Temel Kavramlar ve Örnek Uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları.
Şimşek, Ö. F. (2007). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş: Temel ilkeler ve Lisrel uygulamaları. Ekinoks yayınları, Ankara.
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Penguin.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207-232.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Heuristics and biases: Judgement under uncertainty. Science, 185(4157), 1124-30.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297-323.
Urbig, D., Stauf, J., & Weitzel, U. (2009). What is your level of overconfidence? A strictly incentive compatible measurement of absolute and relative overconfidence. Discussion Paper Series/Tjalling C. Koopmans Research Institute, 9(20).
Wu, B., & Knott, A. M. (2006). Entrepreneurial risk and market entry. Management Science, 52(9), 1315-1330.
Yaşlıoğlu, M. M. (2017). Sosyal bilimlerde faktör analizi ve geçerlilik: Keşfedici ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizlerinin kullanılması. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 46, 74-85.
Yazıcıoğlu, Y., & Erdoğan, S. (2004). SPSS Uygulamalı Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.