Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-9k27k Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-16T09:40:57.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The impact of instructions and procedure on reducing confusion and bubbles in experimental asset markets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Jürgen Huber  and
Michael Kirchler
Jürgen Huber*
Affiliation:
Department of Banking and Finance, University of Innsbruck, Universitätsstrasse 15, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria
Michael Kirchler*
Affiliation:
Department of Banking and Finance, University of Innsbruck, Universitätsstrasse 15, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria Department of Economics, Centre for Finance, University of Gothenburg, P.O. Box 600, 40530 Gothenburg, Sweden
*
[email protected]
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 1988 Smith, Suchanek, and Williams (henceforth SSW) introduced a very influential model to test the efficiency of experimental asset markets. They and many subsequent studies observe that bubbles are robust to many treatment changes. Instead, bubbles are avoided only when subjects are experienced in the same setting, when the dividend-process is experienced by subjects beforehand, or when the fundamental value-process (FV) is presented in a well understandable context to reduce subjects’ confusion. We extend this line of research and show that even marginal changes in the experimental instructions/procedure can eliminate bubbles in the SSW-model. In particular, we show that mispricing is significantly reduced and overvaluation is eliminated completely (i) when the fundamental value process is displayed in a graph instead of a table or (ii) when subjects are asked about the current fundamental value at the beginning of each period. From a questionnaire conducted at the end of the experiment we infer that these treatment changes help to improve subjects’ understanding of the FV-process. We conclude that all bubble reducing factors have one common feature: they allow subjects to understand the non-intuitive declining FV-process of the SSW-model better and thus reduce subjects’ confusion about the FV-process.

Keywords

Experimental economicsAsset marketBubbleMarket efficiency

JEL classification

D84: Expectations • Speculations G10: General C92: Laboratory, Group Behavior
Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 89 - 105
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackert, L. F., Charupat, N., Church, B. K., & Deaves, R. (2006). Margin, short sell, and lotteries in experimental asset markets. Southern Economic Journal, 73(2), 419–436.Google Scholar
Caginalp, G., Porter, D., & Smith, V. (2001). Financial bubbles: Excess cash, momentum and incomplete information. The Journal of Psychology and Financial Markets, 2(2), 80–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dufwenberg, M., Lindqvist, T., & Moore, E. (2005). Bubbles and experience: An experiment. American Economic Review, 95(5), 1731–1737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greiner, B. (2004). An online recruitment system for economic experiments. In GWDG Bericht: Vol. 63. Forschung und wissenschaftliches Rechnen 2003 (pp. 79–93). Goettingen: Gesellschaft fuer Wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung.Google Scholar
Haruvy, E., & Noussair, C. N. (2006). The effect of short selling on bubbles and crashes in experimental spot asset markets. The Journal of Finance, 61(3), 1119–1157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirchler, M., Huber, J., & Stöckl, T. (2011). Thar she bursts—Reducing confusion reduces bubbles. American Economic Review (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Lei, V., & Vesely, F. (2009). Market efficiency: Evidence from a no-bubble asset market experiment. Pacific Economic Review, 14(2), 246–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lei, V., Noussair, C. N., & Plott, C. R. (2001). Nonspeculative bubbles in experimental asset markets: lack of common knowledge of rationality vs. actual irrationality. Econometrica, 69(4), 831–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noussair, C., Richter, G., & Tyran, J.-R. (2008). Money illusion and nominal inertia in experimental asset markets (Working Paper).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oechssler, J. (2010). Searching beyond the lamppost: Let's focus on economically relevant questions. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 73, 65–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, V. L. (2010). Theory and experiment: what are the questions? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 73, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, V., Suchanek, G., & Williams, A. (1988). Bubbles, crashes, and endogenous expectations in experimental spot asset markets. Econometrica, 56(5), 1119–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, V., van Boening, M., & Wellford, C. P. (2000). Dividend timing and behavior in laboratory asset markets. Economic Theory, 16, 567–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stöckl, T., Huber, J., & Kirchler, M. (2010). Bubble measures in experimental asset markets. Experimental Economics, 13, 284–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutter, M., Huber, J., & Kirchler, M. (2011). Bubbles and information: An experiment. Management Science (forthcoming). doi:10.1287/mnsc.1110.1365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Boening, M., Williams, A. W., & LaMaster, S. (1993). Price bubbles and crashes in experimental call markets. Economics Letters, 41(2), 179–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar