No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This paper investigates the effects of preferences on judgments in an investing context, where investors should be motivated to interpret information objectively, yet have clear preferences with respect to what the information they are evaluating conveys (i.e., a gain or a loss on their investment). The results of the experiment are consistent with theories of motivated reasoning that predict when and in what manner directional preferences affect how information is processed. Specifically, investors are motivated to agree unthinkingly with information that suggests they might make money on their investment, but disagree with information that suggests they might lose money. In disagreeing, long investors expect earnings to be relatively high and short investors expect earnings to be relatively low. These results have implications not only for understanding investor behavior, but also for understanding the biased behavior of market participants who face conflicts of interest, such as analysts, managers, and auditors, by providing direct evidence that such behavior can arise for purely psychological reasons.

This paper investigates the effect of vivid language on investor judgments. Recent research finds that investor judgments are significantly influenced by disclosure tone (positive versus negative). Holding tone constant, we investigate investors’ reactions to vivid versus pallid information. Drawing on theories from psychology, we predict that investors will be sensitive to the differences between vivid and pallid language when the underlying information is preference inconsistent, but not when the information is preference consistent. Results of two experiments support our prediction. Vivid language significantly influences the judgment of investors who hold contrarian positions (i.e., short investors in a bull market and long investors in a bear market). Interestingly, vivid language has limited influence on the judgment of investors who hold positions consistent with the general tenor of the market. Our results provide evidence regarding when vividness matters and when it does not in financial contexts, thereby contributing to both psychology and a growing literature on disclosure tone in financial reporting. In addition, our results also speak to concerns raised by regulators and academics asserting that vivid language can inflate bubbles and incite panics.