DAVRANIŞSAL FİNANS ARAŞTIRMALARINDA KULLANILAN OYUNLAR: DİKTATÖR, ÜLTİMATOM VE GÜVEN OYUNU KARŞILAŞTIRMASI
Abstract
Amaç- Geleneksel finans teorilerinin rasyonellik varsayımının çürümeye başlaması, insanların kendi faydalarını maksimize etmek için her şeyi
yapacak olan ve faydacılıktan başka hiçbir şey düşünmeyen canlılar olmadığının görülmesi ve kazan-kazan oynamanın da toplam getiriye
olumlu etki edebileceğinin anlaşılmasıyla birlikte ortaya çıkan davranışsal finansın esas konusu yatırımcı davranışıdır. Zira yatırımcıyı
anlamadan piyasayı anlamak mümkün olmayacaktır. Bu nedenle yatırımcının davranış örüntülerini bilmek ve daha da önemlisi bu
davranışların sebeplerini tespit edebilmek araştırmacılar için son derece önemlidir. Bu çalışma söz konusu aşanda araştırmalar yapan veya
yapmayı düşünen araştırmacılara yön vermek ve yardımcı olmak amacıyla hazırlanmıştır.
Metodoloji- Çalışmada literatür incelemesi yapılmıştır. Bilimsel şekilde tanımlanan diktator oyunu, ultimatum oyunu ve güven oyunu ayrıntılı
şekilde açıklanmıştır.
Bulgular- Finansal kararların sebep ve sonuçlarının değerlendirilmesinde kullanılan deney tasarımlarında uygulanabilirliği kolay olan oyunlara
ilişkin literatür örnekleri bulgular olarak değerlendirilmektedir.
Sonuç- Çalışmanın amacı davranışsal finansın araştırma alanına giren yatırımcı davranışlarını inceleyen bilim insanlarına, uygulanabilirliği
yüksek ve nispeten kolay olan çeşitli davranış oyunlarını açıklamaktır. Oyun teorisi ile başlayan davranış oyunları dictator, ultimatum ve güven
oyunları ile devam etmiştir. Güncel çalışmalar ise bu oyunların sayısının ve niteliğinin de halen devam ettiğini göstermektedir. Yatırımcı
davranışının incelenmesi hem bireysel kayıpları azaltma kabiliyeti hem de piyasa anomalilerini minimize etme gücü nedeniyle son derece
önemli olduğundan, bu çalışmanın gelecek çalışmalara yön vermesi beklenmektedir.
References
- Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122–142. https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1995.1027
- Ebstein, R. P., Israel, S., Chew, S. H., Zhong, S. ve Knafo, A. (2010). Genetics of human social behavior. Neuron Review. 65 (March 25), 831- 844.
- Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J. L., Savin, N., & Sefton, M. (1994). Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 6(3), 347–369. https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1994.1021
- Guala, F., & Mittone, L. (2010). Paradigmatic experiments: The dictator game. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 39(5), 578–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2009.05.007
- Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(4), 367–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(82)90011-7
- Harsanyi, J. C. (1961). On the rationality postulates underlying the theory of cooperative games. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 5(2), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200276100500205
- Smith, E. A. (2006). Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-Scale Societies:Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-Scale Societies. American Anthropologist, 108(2), 420–421. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.2006.108.2.420
- Mittone, L., & Ploner, M. (2009). Social effects in a multi-agent investment game an experimental analysis (No. 0905). Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
- Oosterbeek, H., Sloof, R., & van de Kuilen, G. (2001). Cultural Differences In Ultimatum Game Experiments: Evidence From A Meta-Analysis. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.286428
- Harsanyi, J. C. (1961). On the rationality postulates underlying the theory of cooperative games. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 5(2), 179– 196. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200276100500205
- Sanfey, A. G., Rilling, J. K., Aronson, J. A., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2003). The Neural Basis of Economic Decision-Making in the Ultimatum Game. Science, 300(5626), 1755–1758. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1082976
Abstract
Purpose- The main subject of behavioral finance, which emerged with the deterioration of the rationality assumption of traditional finance
theories, the fact that people are not creatures who will do everything to maximize their own benefits and think of nothing but utilitarianism,
and that win-win playing can have a positive effect on the total return, is investor behavior. Because it will not be possible to understand the
market without understanding the investor. For this reason, it is extremely important for researchers to know the behavior patterns of the
investor and, more importantly, to identify the reasons for these behaviors. This study has been prepared in order to guide and assist
researchers who are doing or considering doing research in this field.
Methodology- Literature review was conducted in the study. Scientifically defined dictator game, ultimatum game and trust game are
explained in detail.
Findings- Literature examples of games that are easy to implement in experimental designs used in the evaluation of the causes and
consequences of financial decisions are considered as findings.
Conclusion- The aim of the study is to explain various behavioral games that are relatively easy and highly applicable to scientists who study
investor behavior in the research area of behavioral finance. Behavioral games that started with game theory continued with dictator,
ultimatum and trust games. Current studies show that the number and quality of these games still continues. Since the examination of
investor behavior is extremely important due to its ability to reduce individual losses and to minimize market anomalies, this study is expected
to guide future studies.
References
- Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122–142. https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1995.1027
- Ebstein, R. P., Israel, S., Chew, S. H., Zhong, S. ve Knafo, A. (2010). Genetics of human social behavior. Neuron Review. 65 (March 25), 831- 844.
- Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J. L., Savin, N., & Sefton, M. (1994). Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 6(3), 347–369. https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1994.1021
- Guala, F., & Mittone, L. (2010). Paradigmatic experiments: The dictator game. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 39(5), 578–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2009.05.007
- Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(4), 367–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(82)90011-7
- Harsanyi, J. C. (1961). On the rationality postulates underlying the theory of cooperative games. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 5(2), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200276100500205
- Smith, E. A. (2006). Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-Scale Societies:Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-Scale Societies. American Anthropologist, 108(2), 420–421. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.2006.108.2.420
- Mittone, L., & Ploner, M. (2009). Social effects in a multi-agent investment game an experimental analysis (No. 0905). Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
- Oosterbeek, H., Sloof, R., & van de Kuilen, G. (2001). Cultural Differences In Ultimatum Game Experiments: Evidence From A Meta-Analysis. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.286428
- Harsanyi, J. C. (1961). On the rationality postulates underlying the theory of cooperative games. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 5(2), 179– 196. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200276100500205
- Sanfey, A. G., Rilling, J. K., Aronson, J. A., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2003). The Neural Basis of Economic Decision-Making in the Ultimatum Game. Science, 300(5626), 1755–1758. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1082976
Details
| Primary Language | Turkish |
|---|---|
| Subjects | Finance, Business Administration |
| Journal Section | Articles |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | July 30, 2022 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2022 Volume: 15 Issue: 1 |
Cite
PressAcademia Procedia (PAP) publishes proceedings of conferences, seminars and symposiums. PressAcademia Procedia aims to provide a source for academic researchers, practitioners and policy makers in the area of social and behavioral sciences, and engineering.
PressAcademia Procedia invites academic conferences for publishing their proceedings with a review of editorial board. Since PressAcademia Procedia is an double blind peer-reviewed open-access book, the manuscripts presented in the conferences can easily be reached by numerous researchers. Hence, PressAcademia Procedia increases the value of your conference for your participants.
PressAcademia Procedia provides an ISBN for each Conference Proceeding Book and a DOI number for each manuscript published in this book.
PressAcademia Procedia is currently indexed by DRJI, J-Gate, International Scientific Indexing, ISRA, Root Indexing, SOBIAD, Scope, EuroPub, Journal Factor Indexing and InfoBase Indexing.
Please contact to procedia@pressacademia.org for your conference proceedings.