Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
  • Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-9dmbd Total loading time: 0.302 Render date: 2021-03-03T19:36:26.790Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }
EnglishFrançais
Behavioural Public Policy Behavioural Public Policy

Article contents

How psychological bias shapes accounting and financial regulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2017

DAVID HIRSHLEIFER  and
SIEW HONG TEOH
DAVID HIRSHLEIFER
Affiliation:
Merage School of Business, University of California, Irvine, USA
SIEW HONG TEOH
Affiliation:
Merage School of Business, University of California, Irvine, USA
Corresponding
E-mail address:
steoh@uci.edu
Get access
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Most applications of behavioral economics, finance, and accounting research to policy focus on alleviating the adverse effects of individuals’ biases and cognitive constraints (e.g. through investor protection rules or nudges). We argue that it is equally important to understand how psychological bias can cause a collective dysfunction – bad accounting policy and financial regulation. We discuss here how psychological bias on the part of the designers of regulation and accounting policy (voters, regulators, politicians, media commentators, managers, users, auditors, and financial professionals) has helped shape existing regulation, and how an understanding of this process can improve regulation in the future. Regulatory ideologies are belief systems that have evolved and spread by virtue of their ability to recruit psychological biases. We examine how several psychological factors and social processes affect regulatory ideologies.

Type
Articles
Information
Behavioural Public Policy , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , May 2017 , pp. 87 - 105
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.
If you should have access and can't see this content please contact technical support.

References

Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D. and Akert, R. M. (2006), Social Psychology, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Banerjee, A. V. (1992), ‘A Simple Model of Herd Behavior’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(3): 797–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benabou, R. and Tirole, J. (2006), ‘Belief in a Just World and Redistributive Politics’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(2): 699–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D. and Welch, I. (1992), ‘A Theory of Fads, Custom, and Cultural Change as Informational Cascades’, Journal of Political Economy, 100(5): 992–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, R. and Richerson, P. J. (2006), ‘Culture and the Evolution of the Human Social Instincts’, Roots of human sociality, 453–477.Google Scholar
Brewer, M. (1979), ‘In-group Bias in the Minimal Intergroup Situation: A Cognitive-motivational Analysis’, Psychological Bulletin, 86(2): 307–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. and Thaler, R. (1995), ‘Anomalies: Ultimatums, Dictators and Manners’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2): 209–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caplan, B. (2001), ‘Rational Ignorance versus Rational Irrationality’, Kyklos, 54(1): 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caplan, B. (2007), The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Chancellor, E. (2001), ‘A Short History of the Bear’, Available at http://www.prudentbear.com, Guest Commentary, October 29, Page 6.Google Scholar
D'Acunto, F., Prokopczuk, M. and Weber, M. (2015), ‘The Long Shadow of Jewish Persecution on Financial Decisions’ (November 2015). http://ssrn.com/abstract=2368073.Google Scholar
Daniel, K., Hirshleifer, D. and Teoh, S. H. (2002), ‘Investor Psychology in Capital Markets: Evidence and Policy Implications’, Journal of Monetary Economics, 49(1): 139–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1989), The Selfish Gene, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Del Guercio, D. (1996), ‘The Distorting Effect of the Prudent-man Laws on Institutional Equity Investments’, Journal of Financial Economics, 40(1): 31–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, A. (1957), An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Fast, N. J., Heath, C. and Wu, G. (2009), ‘Common Ground and Cultural Prominence How Conversation Reinforces Culture’, Psychological Science, 20(7): 904–911.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guiso, L., Sapienza, P. and Zingales, L. (2009), ‘Cultural Biases in Economic Exchange’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(3): 1095–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haidt, J. (2012), The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Hakkio, C. S. (1994), ‘Should We Throw Sand in the Gears of Financial Markets?’, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City – Economic Review, Second Quarter II, 17–30.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (1978), Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volume 1: Rules and Order, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, F. (1988), The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirshleifer, D. (2008), ‘Psychological Bias as a Driver of Financial Regulation’, European Financial Management, 14(5): 856–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirshleifer, D. and Teoh, S. H. (2009), ‘The Psychological Attraction Approach to Accounting and Disclosure Policy’, Contemporary Accounting Research, 1067–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, L., Koonce, L. and McAnally, M. (2001), ‘SEC Market Risk Disclosures: Implications for Judgment and Decision Making’, Accounting Horizons, 15(1): 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffer, E. (1963), The Ordeal of Change, New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Jenni, K. and Loewenstein, G. (1997), ‘Explaining the Identifiable Victim Effect’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14(3): 235–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jolls, C., Sunstein, C. R. and Thaler, R. (1998), ‘A Behavioral Approach to Law and Economics’, Stanford Law Review, 50–5: 1471–1550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), ‘Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk’, Econometrica, 47(2): 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koonce, L., McAnally, M. and Mercer, M. (2005), ‘How Do Investors Judge the Risk of Financial and Derivative Instruments?’, Accounting Review, 80(1): 221–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuran, T. and Sunstein, C. (1999), ‘Availability Cascades and Risk Regulation’, Stanford Law Review, 51–4: 683–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laibson, D. (1997), ‘Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 443–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lev, B. (1968), ‘The Aggregation Problem in Financial Statements: an Informational Approach’, Journal of Accounting Research, 247–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maines, L. A. and McDaniel, L. S. (2000), ‘Effects of Comprehensive-Income Characteristics on Nonprofessional Investors' Judgments: The Role of Financial-Statement Presentation Format’, Accounting Review, 75(2): 179–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCaffery, E. and Baron, J. (2006), ‘Isolation Effects and the Neglect of Indirect Effects of Fiscal Policies’, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19(4): 289–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, K. M. and Shleifer, A. (2004), ‘Persuasion in Politics’, American Economic Review, 94(2): 435–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nisbett, R. E. and Ross, L. (1980), Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Pipes, D. (1997), Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Ritov, I. and Baron, J. (1990), ‘Reluctance to Vaccinate: Omission Bias and Ambiguity’, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 3(4): 263–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romano, R. (2005), Romano, Roberta, The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Making of Quack Corporate Governance, Yale Law Journal , 114(7): 1521–1611.Google Scholar
Rubin, P. H. (2002), The Evolutionary Origin of Freedom, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Slovic, P., Finucan, M., Peters, E. and MacGregor, D. G. (2002), ‘The Affect Heuristic’, in Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. and Kahneman, D. (eds), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, A. (1776), The Wealth of Nations, London: W. Strahan and T. Cadell.Google Scholar
Southern, R. W. (1968), ‘Aquinas, Thomas,’ in Sills, D. L. (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Volume 1, New York: Crowell Collier and Macmillan, 374–377.Google Scholar
Stiglitz, J. E. (1989), ‘Using Tax Policy to Curb Speculative Short-term Trading’, Journal of Financial Services Research, 3(2–3): 101–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Summers, L. H. and Summers, V. P. (1989), ‘When Financial Markets Work Too Well: A Cautious Case for a Securities Transactions Tax’, Journal of Financial Services Research, 3(2–3): 261–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. and Thaler, R. H. (2003), ‘Libertarian Paternalism Is Not an Oxymoron’, University of Chicago Law Review, 70(4): 1159–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, R. (1985), ‘Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice’, Marketing Science, 4(3): 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1973), ‘Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability’, Cognitive Psychology, 5(4): 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waymire, G. and Basu, S. (2008), ‘Accounting Is an Evolved Economic Institution’, Foundations and Trends in Accounting, 2(1–2): 1–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 292
Total number of PDF views: 18096 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 31st May 2017 - 3rd March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

1 Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

How psychological bias shapes accounting and financial regulation
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

How psychological bias shapes accounting and financial regulation
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

How psychological bias shapes accounting and financial regulation
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *