Cited by 586Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsFinancial Markets and Investment StrategiesExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies

Understanding Mechanisms Underlying Peer Effects: Evidence From a Field Experiment on Financial Decisions

Open access
Leonardo Bursztyn, Florian P. Ederer, Bruno Ferman, Noam Yuchtman·2014·Econometrica

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.3982/ecta11991

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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
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