Understanding Mechanisms Underlying Peer Effects: Evidence From a Field Experiment on Financial Decisions
Open accessAbstract
Using a high‐stakes field experiment conducted with a financial brokerage, we implement a novel design to separately identify two channels of social influence in financial decisions, both widely studied theoretically. When someone purchases an asset, his peers may also want to purchase it, both because they learn from his choice (“social learning”) and because his possession of the asset directly affects others' utility of owning the same asset (“social utility”). We randomize whether one member of a peer pair who chose to purchase an asset has that choice implemented, thus randomizing his ability to possess the asset. Then, we randomize whether the second member of the pair: (i) receives no information about the first member, or (ii) is informed of the first member's desire to purchase the asset and the result of the randomization that determined possession. This allows us to estimate the effects of learning plus possession, and learning alone, relative to a (no information) control group. We find that both social learning and social utility channels have statistically and economically significant effects on investment decisions. Evidence from a follow‐up survey reveals that social learning effects are greatest when the first (second) investor is financially sophisticated (financially unsophisticated); investors report updating their beliefs about asset quality after learning about their peer's revealed preference; and, they report motivations consistent with “keeping up with the Joneses” when learning about their peer's possession of the asset. These results can help shed light on the mechanisms underlying herding behavior in financial markets and peer effects in consumption and investment decisions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Bursztyn et al. (2014) find in a field experiment that financial market professionals are influenced by their peers due to both social learning and social utility.
“Bursztyn et al. (2014) find in a field experiment that financial market professionals are influenced by their peers due to both, 'social learning' and 'social utility'.”
From Copy Trading (2020) · cites this paper as Bursztyn et al. (2014)
Cites
A theory of social comparison processes
Festinger, L. (1954) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/001872675400700202 · Cited by 20,926 · see citing works
By Force of Habit: A Consumption‐Based Explanation of Aggregate Stock Market Behavior
Campbell, J. Y., & Cochrane, J. H. (1999) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/250059 · Cited by 5,210 · see citing works
Experimental Analysis of Neighborhood Effects
Kling, J. R., Liebman, J. B., & Katz, L. F. (2007) · Econometrica · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2007.00733.x · Cited by 2,719 · see citing works
Social norms and energy conservation
Allcott, H. (2011) · Journal of Public Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.03.003 · Cited by 2,715 · see citing works
Learning about a New Technology: Pineapple in Ghana
Conley, T. G., & Udry, C. R. (2010) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.100.1.35 · Cited by 2,180 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Peer Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility
Cao, J., Liang, H., & Zhan, X. (2019) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2018.3100 · Cited by 573 · see citing works
How Customer Referral Programs Turn Social Capital into Economic Capital
Van Den Bulte, C., Bayer, E., Skiera, B., & Schmitt, P. (2018) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmr.14.0653 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Apesteguia, J., Oechssler, J., & Weidenholzer, S. (2020) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2019.3508 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bursztyn, L., Ederer, F. P., Ferman, B., & Yuchtman, N.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Yale University (US)
- Escola de Economia de São Paulo (BR)
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Venue
- Econometrica
- Publisher
- The Econometric Society
- Published
- 2014
- Volume
- 82
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1273-1301
- ISSN
- 0012-9682 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3008566380
- Cited by
- 586
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 62 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 64 · 2021: 72 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 7 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 23.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- orcid.org
- Locations
- Econometrica (publishedVersion)
- London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion)
- London School of Economics and Political Science Theses Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Russell Sage Foundation
- Sage Foundation
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Financial Markets and Investment Strategies
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Keywords
- peer effects, social learning, social utility, herding behavior, investment decision-making, asset purchases, financial sophistication, belief updating, keeping up with the Joneses
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