The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prospect Theory and Stock Returns: An Empirical Test
Open accessAbstract
We test the hypothesis that, when thinking about allocating money to a stock, investors mentally represent the stock by the distribution of its past returns and then evaluate this distribution in the way described by prospect theory. In a simple model of asset prices where some investors think in this way, a stock whose past return distribution has a high (low) prospect theory value earns a low (high) subsequent return, on average. We find empirical support for this prediction in the cross-section of U.S. stock returns, particularly among small-capitalization stocks where less sophisticated investors are likely to have a bigger impact on prices. We repeat our tests in 46 international stock markets and find a similar pattern in a majority of these markets.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1988) · Decision, Probability and Utility · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609220.014 · Cited by 32,474
Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds
Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1993) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/0304-405x(93)90023-5 · Cited by 25,754
On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance
Carhart, M. M. (1997) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb03808.x · Cited by 17,283
The Cross‐Section of Expected Stock Returns
FAMA, E. F., & FRENCH, K. R. (1992) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1992.tb04398.x · Cited by 17,261
Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00122574 · Cited by 15,467
Illiquidity and stock returns: cross-section and time-series effects
Amihud, Y. (2002) · Journal of Financial Markets · doi:10.1016/s1386-4181(01)00024-6 · Cited by 9,963
Does the Stock Market Overreact?
De BONDT, W. F. M., & THALER, R. (1985) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1985.tb05004.x · Cited by 7,578
Liquidity Risk and Expected Stock Returns
Pástor, Ľ., & Stambaugh, R. F. (2003) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/374184 · Cited by 5,339
The Cross‐Section of Volatility and Expected Returns
ANG, A., HODRICK, R. J., XING, Y., & ZHANG, X. (2006) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.2006.00836.x · Cited by 4,508
Metadata
- Authors
- Barberis, N., Mukherjee, A., & Wang, B.
- Venue
- Review of Financial Studies
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2016-07-01
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 3068-3107
- ISSN
- 0893-9454 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-7368
- OpenAlex
- W3124148319
- Cited by
- 336
- References
- 47
- FWCI
- 34.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prospect Theory and Stock Returns: An Empirical Test. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/rfs/hhw049
- The paper
- Barberis, N., Mukherjee, A., & Wang, B. (2016). Prospect Theory and Stock Returns: An Empirical Test. Review of Financial Studies. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhw049
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
