Using comprehensive data from the Finnish stock market, we assess the explanatory value of the three most commonly cited explanations for the disposition effect: prospect theory, belief in mean reversion, and escalation of commitment. In general, the results provide evidence for the presence of the disposition effect. More importantly, the effect appears to be significantly more pronounced when investors are personally responsible for the initial investment decision. This finding suggests that investor behavior is influenced above all by self-justificatory concerns, an interpretation that is consistent with the escalation of commitment-based explanation of the disposition effect. À 1 1þexp ÀðÀ0:245À1:286þ2:185þ0:483Þ ½ . 17Barber and Odean (2001) used gender as a proxy for overconfidence due to the common view that men are more confident than women and, consequently, tend to trade more. Yet the link between gender and overconfidence has yet to be unequivocally established.

Research on the systematic literature review process is extensive, but a justified explanation of how a narrative literature review process progresses remains absent from the existing literature. The purpose of this study is to increase understanding about the narrative literature review process. By building on process theory and the literature on systematic literature reviews and by empirically examining the literature review processes for bachelor's theses in a European business school, we reveal that a narrative literature process is iterative, non-structured and multi-layered; contains several cumulative written outcomes; and is embedded in a social context wherein various official and non-official actors guide and support the beginning researcher. This study is a fresh attempt to explain the progress of a literature review process with help of process theory, thereby offering novel insights into the research on literature reviews in general and on narrative literature reviews across various fields of human sciences specifically.

No abstract

No abstract

Prospect theory-based hedonic editing hypothesis posits that people integrate or segregate multiple outcomes so as to achieve the highest perceived value. We test the hypothesis in an actual decision-making context by investigating how stock market investors time their sales of stocks when realizing gains and losses. If the principles that guide investors' behavior are those suggested by the hedonic editing hypothesis, we should observe investors integrating losses more frequently than gains and integrating smaller losses with larger gains rather than the other way around. Our results do not conclusively support either of these assumptions but suggest that the relationship between prospect theoretic preferences and investor behavior is not as general as it might seem.