Behavioural biases in investment decision making – a systematic literature review
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to systematically review the literature published in past 33 years on behavioural biases in investment decision-making. The paper highlights the major gaps in the existing studies on behavioural biases. It also aims to raise specific questions for future research. Design/methodology/approach – We employ systematic literature review (SLR) method in the present study. The prominence of research is assessed by studying the year of publication, journal of publication, country of study, types of statistical method, citation analysis and content analysis on the literature on behavioural biases. The present study is based on 117 selected articles published in peer- review journals between 1980 and 2013. Findings – Much of the existing literature on behavioural biases indicates the limited research in emerging economies in this area, the dominance of secondary data-based empirical research, the lack of empirical research on individuals who exhibit herd behaviour, the focus on equity in home bias, and indecisive empirical findings on herding bias. Research limitations/implications – This study focuses on individuals’ behavioural biases in investment decision-making. Our aim is to analyse the impact of cognitive biases on trading behaviour, volatility, market returns and portfolio selection. Originality/value – The paper covers a considerable period of time (1980-2013). To the best of authors’ knowledge, this study is the first using systematic li…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524 · see citing works
Trading Is Hazardous to Your Wealth: The Common Stock Investment Performance of Individual Investors
Barber, B. M., & Odean, T. (2000) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/0022-1082.00226 · Cited by 3,955 · see citing works
Odean, T. (1999) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.89.5.1279 · Cited by 2,247 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
How financial literacy moderate the association between behaviour biases and investment decision?
Adil, M., Singh, Y., & Ansari, M. S. (2022) · Asian Journal of Accounting Research · doi:10.1108/ajar-09-2020-0086 · Cited by 236 · see citing works
Berthet, V. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.802439 · Cited by 191 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kumar, S., & Goyal, N.
- Affiliations
- Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur (IN)
- Venue
- Qualitative Research in Financial Markets
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2015-02-02
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 88-108
- ISSN
- 1755-4179 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2020076795
- Cited by
- 331
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 27 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 65 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4
- FWCI
- 1.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Qualitative Research in Financial Markets (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Financial Markets and Investment Strategies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Financial Literacy and Behavior
- Keywords
- behavioral biases, investment decision-making, behavioral finance, cognitive biases, herding behavior, home bias, trading behavior, portfolio optimization, emerging markets, market volatility
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