Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

THE EFFECT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTANCE AND PERCEIVED INVESTING COMPETENCE ON WILLINGNESS TO INVEST? AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY IN TURKEY

Year 2018, Volume: 20 Issue: 1, 162 - 178, 08.06.2018

Emre Cengiz

https://doi.org/10.31460/mbdd.328584

Abstract

Construal level of Theory suggests when an individual
feels more psychological distant about an object, the level of mental construal
about the object becomes more abstract. From the perspective of the investment,
when a firm is perceived psychological distant by investors, it might not be
subject to investment. This study tests whether the psychological distance in
terms of social familiarity and perceived investing competence affect the
willingness of invest of the investors. The results indicated that there was a
positive relationship between social familiarity and willingness to invest.
Nevertheless, the positive relationship was stronger between perceived
investing competence and the willingness to invest. The results also indicate
that perceived investing competence acts as a mediator through the positive
relationship between the social familiarity and the investors’ willingness to
invest.

Keywords

Psychological Distance Home Bias Investor Competence

References

  • Baron, R. M. and D. A. Kenny. 1986. “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. Bulmer, M. G. 1979. Principles of Statistics, New York, Dover.
  • Cooper, I. and E. Kaplanis. 1994. “Home Bias in Equity Portfolios, Inflation Hedging, and International Capital Market Equilibrium”, Review of Financial Studies, 7(1), 45–60.
  • Coval, J. D. and T. J. Moskowitz.1999. “Home Bias at Home: Local Equity Preference in Domestic Portfolios”, The Journal of Finance, 54(6), 2045–2073. Coval, J. and T. Moskowitz. 2001. “The Geography of Investment: Informed Trading and Asset Prices”, Journal of Political Economy, 109, 811–841.
  • Elliott, W. B., K. M. Rennekamp and, B. J. White. 2015. “Does Concrete Language in Disclosures Increase Willingness to Invest ?”, Review of Accounting Studies, 20, 839–865.
  • French, K. and J. Poterba. 1991. “Investor Diversification and International Equity Markets”, The American Economic Review, 81, 222–226.
  • Graham, J. R., C. R. Harvey and, H. Huang. 2009. “Investor Competence, Trading Frequency, and Home Bias”, Management Science, 55(7), 1094–1106.
  • Grinblatt, M. and, M. Keloharju. 2001. “How Distance, Language, and Culture Influence Stockholdings and Trades”, Journal of Finance, 56(3), 1053–1073.
  • Guzman, A. B., L. F. M. Lagdaan and M. L. V. Lagoy. 2015. “The Role of Life-Space, Social Activity, and Depression on The Subjective Memory Complaints Of Community-Dwelling Filipino Elderly: A Structural Equation Model”, Educational Gerontology, 41(5), 348-360.
  • Hair, J., W. Black, , B. Babin and R. Anderson. 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.), Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
  • Hayes, A. F. 2009. “Beyond Baron and Kenny : Statistical Mediation Analysis in the New Millennium”, Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420.
  • Hayes, A. F. 2013. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, The Guilford Press, New York.
  • Heath, C. and A. Tversky. 1991. “Preferences and Beliefs: Ambiguity and Competence in Choice under Uncertainty”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4(5), 5–28.
  • Heiberger, R. M. and B. Holland. 2004. Statistical Analysis and Data Display: An Intermediate Course with Examples in S-Plus, R, and SAS, Springer-Verlag, New York.
  • Hu, L. and, P. M. Bentler. 1999. “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
  • Huberman, G. 2001. “Familiarity Breeds Investment”, Review of Financial Studies, 14(3), 659–680.
  • Iacobucci, D. 2009. “Everything You Always Wanted to Know about SEM (Structural Equations Modeling) But Were Afraid to Ask”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(4), 673–680.
  • Iacobucci, D., N. Saldanha and X. Deng. 2007. “A Mediation on Mediation: Evidence That Structural Equation Models Perform Better Than Regression”, Journal of Consumer Psychological, 7(2), 140–154.
  • Ivković, Z. and S. Weisbenner. 2005. “Local Does as Local Is: Information Content of the Geography of Individual Investors’ Common Stock Investments”, The Journal of Finance, 60(1), 267–306.
  • Jarvis, C.B., S.B. Mackenzie, P.M. Podsakoff, D.G. Mick and W.O. Bearden. 2003. “A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research”, Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199-218.
  • Jeske, K. (2001). “Equity Home Bias: Can Information Cost Explain The Puzzle?”, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Economic Review, 86, 31–42.
  • Kang, J.-K. and R. Stulz. 1997. “Why is there a Home Bias? An Analysis of Foreign Portfolio Equity Ownership in Japan”, Journal of Financial Economics, 46(1), 3–28. Kline, R. 2011. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (3rd ed.), Guilford Press, New York.
  • Koonce, L. and M. G. Lipe 2010. “Earnings Trend and Performance Relative to Benchmarks: How Consistency Influences Their Joint Use”, Journal of Accounting Research, 48(4), 859–884.
  • Lee, A. Y., P. A. Keller and B. Sternthal. 2010. “Value from Regulatory Construal Fit: The Persuasive Impact of Fit between Consumer Goals and Message Concreteness”, Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 735–747.
  • Lewis, K. 1999. “Trying to Explain Home Bias in Equities and Consumption”, Journal of Economic Literature, 37, 571–608.
  • Lundholm, R. J., R. Rogo and J. L. Zhang, 2014. “Restoring the Tower of Babel: How Foreign Firms Communicate with U.S. Investors”, The Accounting Review, 89(4), 1453–1485.
  • MacKinnon, D. P., A. J. Fairchild and M. S. Fritz. 2007. “Mediation Analysis”, Annual Reviews of Psychology, 58, 593–614.
  • Maslowsky, J., J. Jager and D. Hemken. 2015. “Estimating and Interpreting Latent Variable Interactions: A Tutorial For Applying The Latent Moderated Structural Equations Method”, International Journal of Behavioral Development, 39(1), 87–96.
  • McCrea, S. M.; F. Wieber and, A. L. Myers. 2012. “Construal Level Mind-Sets Moderate Self- and Social Stereotyping”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(1), 51-68.
  • Nunnally, J. 1978. Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York.
  • O’Brien, R.M. 2007. “A Caution Regarding Rules of Thumb for Variance Inflation Factors”, Quality & Quantity, 41, 673–690.
  • Perry, J. L., A. R. Nicholls, P. J. Clough and L. Crust. 2015. “Assessing Model Fit: Caveats and Recommendations for Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling”, Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 19(1). 12-21.
  • Rennekamp, K. 2012. “Processing Fluency and Investors’ Reactions to Disclosure Readability”, Journal of Accounting Research, 50(5), 1319–1354.
  • Sposito, V. A., M. L. Hand and B. Skarpness. 1983. “On The Efficiency of Using the Sample Kurtosis in Selecting Optimal Lp Estimators”, Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation, 12(3), 265–272.
  • Stephan, E., N. Liberman and Y. Trope. 2011. “The Effects of Time Perspective and Level of Construal on Social Distance”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(2), 397–402.
  • Tesar, L. L. and I. M. Werner. 1995. “Home Bias and High Turnover”, Journal of International Money and Finance, 14(4), 467-492.
  • Trope, Y. and N. Liberman. 2010. “Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance”, Psychology Review, 117(2), 440–463.
  • Trope, Y., N. Liberman and C. Wakslak. 2007. “Construal Levels and Psychological Distance: Effects on Representation, Prediction, Evaluation, and Behavior”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 83–95.
  • Zhu, N. 2002. The Local Bias of Individual Investors. (Working paper, Yale University), (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=302620) (Accessed: 06.02.2016)

PSİKOLOJİK UZAKLIK VE ALGILANAN YATIRIM YETERLİLİĞİNİN YATIRIM YAPMA İSTEĞİNE ETKİSİ: TÜRKİYE’DE DENEYSEL BİR ÇALIŞMA

Year 2018, Volume: 20 Issue: 1, 162 - 178, 08.06.2018

Emre Cengiz

https://doi.org/10.31460/mbdd.328584

Abstract

Teorinin kesinlik düzeyi kavramına göre bir birey,
bir objeyi psikolojik olarak daha uzak olarak algıladığında, o obje hakkındaki
yapılan zihinsel yorum düzeyi daha soyut olmaktadır. Yatırım perspektifinden
bakıldığında bir firma eğer yatırımcılar tarafından psikolojik olarak uzak algılanırsa,
yatırımcıyı çekemeyebilir. Bu çalışma, bir psikolojik uzaklık boyutu olan
sosyal yakınlık ile algılanan yatırım yeterliliğinin, yatırımcıların yatırım
yapma isteklerini etkileyip etkilemediğini test etmektedir. Sonuçlara göre
sosyal yakınlık ve yatırım yapma istekliliği arasında pozitif bir ilişki yer
almaktadır. Ayrıca, algılanan yatırım yeterliliği ile yatırım yapma istekliliği
arasında güçlü bir ilişki bulunmuştur. Diğer taraftan, algılanan yatırım
yeterliliğinin; sosyal yakınlık ile yatırımcıların yatırım yapma istekliliği
arasındaki pozitif ilişki arasında aracı değişken olarak görev yaptığı
bulunmuştur.

Keywords

Psikolojik Uzaklık Yakın Hissedilen Şirketlere Yatırım Önyargısı Yatırım Yeterliliği

References

  • Baron, R. M. and D. A. Kenny. 1986. “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. Bulmer, M. G. 1979. Principles of Statistics, New York, Dover.
  • Cooper, I. and E. Kaplanis. 1994. “Home Bias in Equity Portfolios, Inflation Hedging, and International Capital Market Equilibrium”, Review of Financial Studies, 7(1), 45–60.
  • Coval, J. D. and T. J. Moskowitz.1999. “Home Bias at Home: Local Equity Preference in Domestic Portfolios”, The Journal of Finance, 54(6), 2045–2073. Coval, J. and T. Moskowitz. 2001. “The Geography of Investment: Informed Trading and Asset Prices”, Journal of Political Economy, 109, 811–841.
  • Elliott, W. B., K. M. Rennekamp and, B. J. White. 2015. “Does Concrete Language in Disclosures Increase Willingness to Invest ?”, Review of Accounting Studies, 20, 839–865.
  • French, K. and J. Poterba. 1991. “Investor Diversification and International Equity Markets”, The American Economic Review, 81, 222–226.
  • Graham, J. R., C. R. Harvey and, H. Huang. 2009. “Investor Competence, Trading Frequency, and Home Bias”, Management Science, 55(7), 1094–1106.
  • Grinblatt, M. and, M. Keloharju. 2001. “How Distance, Language, and Culture Influence Stockholdings and Trades”, Journal of Finance, 56(3), 1053–1073.
  • Guzman, A. B., L. F. M. Lagdaan and M. L. V. Lagoy. 2015. “The Role of Life-Space, Social Activity, and Depression on The Subjective Memory Complaints Of Community-Dwelling Filipino Elderly: A Structural Equation Model”, Educational Gerontology, 41(5), 348-360.
  • Hair, J., W. Black, , B. Babin and R. Anderson. 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.), Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
  • Hayes, A. F. 2009. “Beyond Baron and Kenny : Statistical Mediation Analysis in the New Millennium”, Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420.
  • Hayes, A. F. 2013. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, The Guilford Press, New York.
  • Heath, C. and A. Tversky. 1991. “Preferences and Beliefs: Ambiguity and Competence in Choice under Uncertainty”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4(5), 5–28.
  • Heiberger, R. M. and B. Holland. 2004. Statistical Analysis and Data Display: An Intermediate Course with Examples in S-Plus, R, and SAS, Springer-Verlag, New York.
  • Hu, L. and, P. M. Bentler. 1999. “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
  • Huberman, G. 2001. “Familiarity Breeds Investment”, Review of Financial Studies, 14(3), 659–680.
  • Iacobucci, D. 2009. “Everything You Always Wanted to Know about SEM (Structural Equations Modeling) But Were Afraid to Ask”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(4), 673–680.
  • Iacobucci, D., N. Saldanha and X. Deng. 2007. “A Mediation on Mediation: Evidence That Structural Equation Models Perform Better Than Regression”, Journal of Consumer Psychological, 7(2), 140–154.
  • Ivković, Z. and S. Weisbenner. 2005. “Local Does as Local Is: Information Content of the Geography of Individual Investors’ Common Stock Investments”, The Journal of Finance, 60(1), 267–306.
  • Jarvis, C.B., S.B. Mackenzie, P.M. Podsakoff, D.G. Mick and W.O. Bearden. 2003. “A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research”, Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199-218.
  • Jeske, K. (2001). “Equity Home Bias: Can Information Cost Explain The Puzzle?”, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Economic Review, 86, 31–42.
  • Kang, J.-K. and R. Stulz. 1997. “Why is there a Home Bias? An Analysis of Foreign Portfolio Equity Ownership in Japan”, Journal of Financial Economics, 46(1), 3–28. Kline, R. 2011. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (3rd ed.), Guilford Press, New York.
  • Koonce, L. and M. G. Lipe 2010. “Earnings Trend and Performance Relative to Benchmarks: How Consistency Influences Their Joint Use”, Journal of Accounting Research, 48(4), 859–884.
  • Lee, A. Y., P. A. Keller and B. Sternthal. 2010. “Value from Regulatory Construal Fit: The Persuasive Impact of Fit between Consumer Goals and Message Concreteness”, Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 735–747.
  • Lewis, K. 1999. “Trying to Explain Home Bias in Equities and Consumption”, Journal of Economic Literature, 37, 571–608.
  • Lundholm, R. J., R. Rogo and J. L. Zhang, 2014. “Restoring the Tower of Babel: How Foreign Firms Communicate with U.S. Investors”, The Accounting Review, 89(4), 1453–1485.
  • MacKinnon, D. P., A. J. Fairchild and M. S. Fritz. 2007. “Mediation Analysis”, Annual Reviews of Psychology, 58, 593–614.
  • Maslowsky, J., J. Jager and D. Hemken. 2015. “Estimating and Interpreting Latent Variable Interactions: A Tutorial For Applying The Latent Moderated Structural Equations Method”, International Journal of Behavioral Development, 39(1), 87–96.
  • McCrea, S. M.; F. Wieber and, A. L. Myers. 2012. “Construal Level Mind-Sets Moderate Self- and Social Stereotyping”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(1), 51-68.
  • Nunnally, J. 1978. Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York.
  • O’Brien, R.M. 2007. “A Caution Regarding Rules of Thumb for Variance Inflation Factors”, Quality & Quantity, 41, 673–690.
  • Perry, J. L., A. R. Nicholls, P. J. Clough and L. Crust. 2015. “Assessing Model Fit: Caveats and Recommendations for Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling”, Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 19(1). 12-21.
  • Rennekamp, K. 2012. “Processing Fluency and Investors’ Reactions to Disclosure Readability”, Journal of Accounting Research, 50(5), 1319–1354.
  • Sposito, V. A., M. L. Hand and B. Skarpness. 1983. “On The Efficiency of Using the Sample Kurtosis in Selecting Optimal Lp Estimators”, Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation, 12(3), 265–272.
  • Stephan, E., N. Liberman and Y. Trope. 2011. “The Effects of Time Perspective and Level of Construal on Social Distance”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(2), 397–402.
  • Tesar, L. L. and I. M. Werner. 1995. “Home Bias and High Turnover”, Journal of International Money and Finance, 14(4), 467-492.
  • Trope, Y. and N. Liberman. 2010. “Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance”, Psychology Review, 117(2), 440–463.
  • Trope, Y., N. Liberman and C. Wakslak. 2007. “Construal Levels and Psychological Distance: Effects on Representation, Prediction, Evaluation, and Behavior”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 83–95.
  • Zhu, N. 2002. The Local Bias of Individual Investors. (Working paper, Yale University), (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=302620) (Accessed: 06.02.2016)
There are 38 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Business Administration
Journal Section MAIN SECTION
Authors

Emre Cengiz

Publication Date June 8, 2018
Submission Date July 15, 2017
Published in Issue Year 2018 Volume: 20 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Cengiz, E. (2018). PSİKOLOJİK UZAKLIK VE ALGILANAN YATIRIM YETERLİLİĞİNİN YATIRIM YAPMA İSTEĞİNE ETKİSİ: TÜRKİYE’DE DENEYSEL BİR ÇALIŞMA. Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, 20(1), 162-178. https://doi.org/10.31460/mbdd.328584
 Download Cover Image

Authorship
MBDD follows the guidelines in COPE Authorship Guideline to ensure fair recognition of contributions to a research paper (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/discussion-document/authorship ). Authorship carries both credit and responsibility, and it is essential that all listed authors have made significant contributions to the research.

For multi-author studies, the Contributions of Authors must be declared after the conclusion and before the bibliography of the paper. The authors' initials and last names should be used to indicate which author contributed to which part of the manuscript. Details can be found by clicking the “Article Submission Checklist” button. The authors can acknowledge contributions that do not merit authorship.


The author(s) should disclose the use of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted tools in design and implementation of the research. Such use need to be disclosed within the methodology section of the manuscript. Use of AI does not preclude the manuscript from publication, rather provides a transparent picture of the research.