The impact of instructions and procedure on reducing confusion and bubbles in experimental asset markets

Abstract

In 1988 Smith, Suchanek, and Williams (henceforth SSW) introduced a very influential model to test the efficiency of experimental asset markets. They and many subsequent studies observe that bubbles are robust to many treatment changes. Instead, bubbles are avoided only when subjects are experienced in the same setting, when the dividend-process is experienced by subjects beforehand, or when the fundamental value-process (FV) is presented in a well understandable context to reduce subjects’ confusion. We extend this line of research and show that even marginal changes in the experimental instructions/procedure can eliminate bubbles in the SSW-model. In particular, we show that mispricing is significantly reduced and overvaluation is eliminated completely (i) when the fundamental value process is displayed in a graph instead of a table or (ii) when subjects are asked about the current fundamental value at the beginning of each period. From a questionnaire conducted at the end of the experiment we infer that these treatment changes help to improve subjects’ understanding of the FV-process. We conclude that all bubble reducing factors have one common feature: they allow subjects to understand the non-intuitive declining FV-process of the SSW-model better and thus reduce subjects’ confusion about the FV-process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ackert, L. F., Charupat, N., Church, B. K., & Deaves, R. (2006). Margin, short sell, and lotteries in experimental asset markets. Southern Economic Journal, 73(2), 419–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Caginalp, G., Porter, D., & Smith, V. (2001). Financial bubbles: Excess cash, momentum and incomplete information. The Journal of Psychology and Financial Markets, 2(2), 80–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dufwenberg, M., Lindqvist, T., & Moore, E. (2005). Bubbles and experience: An experiment. American Economic Review, 95(5), 1731–1737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Greiner, B. (2004). An online recruitment system for economic experiments. In GWDG Bericht: Vol. 63. Forschung und wissenschaftliches Rechnen 2003 (pp. 79–93). Goettingen: Gesellschaft fuer Wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Haruvy, E., & Noussair, C. N. (2006). The effect of short selling on bubbles and crashes in experimental spot asset markets. The Journal of Finance, 61(3), 1119–1157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kirchler, M., Huber, J., & Stöckl, T. (2011). Thar she bursts—Reducing confusion reduces bubbles. American Economic Review (forthcoming).

  8. Lei, V., & Vesely, F. (2009). Market efficiency: Evidence from a no-bubble asset market experiment. Pacific Economic Review, 14(2), 246–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lei, V., Noussair, C. N., & Plott, C. R. (2001). Nonspeculative bubbles in experimental asset markets: lack of common knowledge of rationality vs. actual irrationality. Econometrica, 69(4), 831–859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Noussair, C., Richter, G., & Tyran, J.-R. (2008). Money illusion and nominal inertia in experimental asset markets (Working Paper).

  11. Oechssler, J. (2010). Searching beyond the lamppost: Let’s focus on economically relevant questions. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 73, 65–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Smith, V. L. (2010). Theory and experiment: what are the questions? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 73, 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Smith, V., Suchanek, G., & Williams, A. (1988). Bubbles, crashes, and endogenous expectations in experimental spot asset markets. Econometrica, 56(5), 1119–1151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Smith, V., van Boening, M., & Wellford, C. P. (2000). Dividend timing and behavior in laboratory asset markets. Economic Theory, 16, 567–583.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Stöckl, T., Huber, J., & Kirchler, M. (2010). Bubble measures in experimental asset markets. Experimental Economics, 13, 284–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sutter, M., Huber, J., & Kirchler, M. (2011). Bubbles and information: An experiment. Management Science (forthcoming). doi:10.1287/mnsc.1110.1365.

  17. Van Boening, M., Williams, A. W., & LaMaster, S. (1993). Price bubbles and crashes in experimental call markets. Economics Letters, 41(2), 179–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Kirchler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Huber, J., Kirchler, M. The impact of instructions and procedure on reducing confusion and bubbles in experimental asset markets. Exp Econ 15, 89–105 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-011-9290-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Experimental economics
  • Asset market
  • Bubble
  • Market efficiency

JEL Classification

  • C92
  • D84
  • G10