臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

當代的財務行為學結合了財務學、心理學、社會學等其他行為科學，為探究投資人在金融市場的非理性行為與相關消費者決策科學，並與效率市場學說學派相抗衡，財務行為理論認為證券的市場價格很大程度上受到受投資者心理和行為所影響。
事實上，人們因為在認知風格上的不同，而導致他們對於訊息的接收以及處理方式也有差異性，認知風格來自心理學領域，此影響人類的思維，知覺，運用知識解決問題的風格，而在本研究我們探討場地獨立型與場地依賴型人格如何影響消費者處理資訊與其金融決策，除此之外，我們亦探究投資人客觀知識對於決策過程之影響。
我們採用實驗設計，結果發現，認知風格的確影響了投資人處理數字資訊之方式。場地獨立型的人，面對數字資訊較為敏感，當面對較大量數字資訊情況時，有較高度的自主思考及能力來處理複雜資訊。本研究也發現投資人的客觀知識在決策過程中是不可或缺的，擁有較高的客觀知識會使投資人更確信自己的財務決策，而金融專業和投資經驗會在校準過程中強化投資人自信心。

Financial behavior has emerged by psychology and behavioral science to reveal the irrational behavior in financial markets and decision-making rules. Financial behavior theory suggests that market price of securities is affected largely by investors’ psychology and behavior. People with different cognitive style organize information in different way, cognitive style is from psychology, it is the process how people thinking, perceiving, and applying knowledge to solve problems, so we try to study the difference between field dependent and field independent people in their process of calibrating numeric information. In addition, we also discuss how “objective knowledge” to influence investors’ financial decision. We use experimental design and the result shows that cognitive style affects how people deal with numeric information. Field independent people are more sensitive to numeric information than field dependent people. When in the situation with more complicate and numeric information, field independent people show the high autonomy and better ability to handle this. Objective knowledge is indispensable for in decision making process. With higher objective knowledge, they are even more convinced about their financial decision. Furthermore, investors’ expertise and experience would strengthen confidence in process of calibration.

ABSTRACT I
摘 要 II
誌 謝 III
Contents IV
Figures VI
Tables VII
I. Introduction 1
1.1 Research Motivation 1
1.2 Mutual Fund in Taiwan 1
1.3 Research Objective 4
II. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses 5
2.1 Behavioral Finance 5
2.2 Ambiguity Aversion 9
2.3 Theory of Comparative Ignorance Hypothesis 9
2.4 Information 11
2.5 Process of Calibration 13
2.6 Consumer’s Personality 14
2.7 Cognitive Style 14
2.8 Field Dependence-Independence 16
2.8.1 Field Dependence 16
2.8.2 Field Independence 16
2.8.3 Comparisons for FD and FID 17
2.8.4 Measures for FD and FID 17
2.9 Consumer Knowledge 18
2.10 Karl Popper's the Three Worlds of Knowledge Theory 19
2.10.1 Three Worlds of Knowledge 19
2.11 Objective Knowledge 21
2.12 Subjective Knowledge 22
2.12.1 Subjective Probability 22
III. Research framework 23
3.1 Research framework 23
3.1.1 Study1 23
3.1.2 Study2 25
3.2 Research Hypotheses 28
IV. Statistical and Research Method 28
4.1 Experimental Design 28
4.2 Factorial Design 29
4.3 Capital Allocation Experiment 29
4.4 Collection Process of Sample 31
4.5 Statistical Method- Analysis of Variance 31
V. Result 31
5.1 Descriptive Statistics 31
5.2 Study 1-Amount of Numeric Information and Cognitive Style 32
5.3 Study 2-Objective Knowledge and Cognitive Style 33
5.4 Interaction Effect of Numeric Information and Cognitive Style 34
VI. Discussion and Conclusion 36
VII. Limitation and Future Research 39
Reference 40
Appendix (1) - Sample Characteristics 46
Appendix (2) - Experimental Survey Questionnaire 52
(2)-1 Experiment I 52
(2)-2 Experiment II 62

1. Alba, J. W., &; Hutchinson, J. W. (2000). Knowledge calibration: What consumers know and what they think they know. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2), 123-156.

2. Alba, R. D., Logan, J. R., &; Stults, B. J. (2000). The changing neighborhood contexts of the immigrant metropolis. Social Forces, 79(2), 587-621.

3. Alba, J. W., &; Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 411-454.

4. Bertini, M., Lewis, H. B., &; Witkin, H. A. (1964). Some preliminary observations with an experimental procedure for the study of hypnagogic and related phenomena. Archivio di psicologia, neurologia e psichiatria.

5. Bettman, J. R., &; Park, C. W. (1980). Effects of prior knowledge and experience and phase of the choice process on consumer decision processes: A protocol analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 234-248.

6. Biggs, J., Fitzgerald, D., &; Atkinson, S. M. (1971). Convergent and divergent abilities in children and teachers'ratings of competence and certain classroom behaviours. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 41(3), 277-286.

7. Brucks, M. (1985). The effects of product class knowledge on information search behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 1-16.

8. Camerer, C., &; Weber, M. (1992). Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity. Journal of risk and uncertainty, 5(4), 325-370.

9. Cronbach, L. J., &; Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions: Irvington.

10. Crutchfield, R. S., Woodworth, D. G., &; Albrecht, R. E. (1958). Perceptual performance and the effective person: DTIC Document.

11. Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. The quarterly journal of economics, 643-669.

12. Epstein, F. H., &; Ross, R. (1999). Atherosclerosis—an inflammatory disease. New England journal of medicine, 340(2), 115-126.

13. Fama, E. F. (1970). Efficient capital markets: A review of theory and empirical work*. The journal of Finance, 25(2), 383-417.

14. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., &; Lichtenstein, S. (1977). Knowing with certainty: The appropriateness of extreme confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and performance, 3(4), 552.

15. Figlewski, S. (1979). Subjective information and market efficiency in a betting market. The Journal of Political Economy, 87(1), 75.

16. Fox, C. R., &; Tversky, A. (1995). Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance. The quarterly journal of economics, 110(3), 585-603.

17. Fox, C. R., &; Weber, M. (2002). Ambiguity aversion, comparative ignorance, and decision context. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88(1), 476-498.

18. Gardner, R. W., &; Schoen, R. A. (1962). Differentiation and abstraction in concept formation. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 76(41), 1-21.

19. Ghirardato, P., &; Marinacci, M. (2001). Risk, ambiguity, and the separation of utility and beliefs. Mathematics of operations research, 26(4), 864-890.

20. Goetzmann, W. N., &; Peles, N. (1997). Cognitive dissonance and mutual fund investors. Journal of Financial Research, 20, 145-158.

21. Hadar, L., Sood, S., &; Fox, C. R. (2013). Subjective knowledge in consumer financial decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(3), 303-316.

22. Joseph, A., &; Wesley Hutchinson, J. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 411-454.

23. Kahneman, D., &; Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 263-291.

24. Kahneman, D., &; Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological review, 80(4), 237.

25. Kahneman, D., &; Riepe, M. W. (1998). Aspects of investor psychology. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 24(4), 52-65.

26. Marital, S., Filer, R., &; Simon, J. (1986). Hand Book of Behavioral Economics-Behavior Macroeconomics. Greenwich: Connecticut JAI Press Inc.

27. Maital, S., Filer R. and Simon, J. (1986). “What Do People Bring to the Stock Market（Beside Money）? The Economic Psychology of Stock Market Behavior.“ In B. Gilad and S. Kaish ed., Handbook of Behavioral Economics Behavioral Macroeconomics, Vol. B Greenwich, Connecticut, JAI Press Inc., 273-307.

28. Mitchell, C., Lintott, D., Ruddell, W., Losowsky, M., &; Axon, A. (1979). Clinical relevance of an unfused pancreatic duct system. Gut, 20(12), 1066-1071.

29. MacCrimmon, K. R., &; Wehrung, D. A. (1990). Characteristics of risk taking executives. Management science, 36(4), 422-435.

30. Nga, J. K., &; Yien, L. K. (2013). The influence of personality trait and demographics on financial decision making among Generation Y. Young Consumers: Insight and Ideas for Responsible Marketers, 14(3), 230-243.

31. Oltman, Philip K., Evelyn Raskin, and Herman A. Witkin. Group embedded figures test. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1971.

32. Petty, R. E., &; Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in experimental social psychology, 19, 123-205.

33. Pennington, N., &; Hastie, R. (1988). Explanation-based decision making: Effects of memory structure on judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(3), 521.

34. Pennington, N., &; Hastie, R. (1993). Reasoning in explanation-based decision making. Cognition, 49(1), 123-163.

35. Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach: Clarendon Press Oxford.

36. Park, C. W., &; Lessig, V. P. (1981). Familiarity and its impact on consumer decision biases and heuristics. Journal of Consumer Research, 223-231.

37. Park, C. W., Mothersbaugh, D. L., &; Feick, L. (1994). Consumer knowledge assessment. Journal of Consumer Research, 71-82.

38. Rabin, M. (1998). Psychology and economics. Journal of economic literature, 11-46.

39. Radecki, C. M., &; Jaccard, J. (1995). Perceptions of knowledge, actual knowledge, and information search behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(2), 107-138.

40. Shefrin, H., &; Statman, M. (2000). Behavioral portfolio theory. Journal of financial and quantitative analysis, 35(02), 127-151.

41. Shefrin, H. (2000). Beyond greed and fear: Understanding behavioral finance and the psychology of investing: Oxford University Press.

42. Shiller, R. J. (1999). Human behavior and the efficiency of the financial system. Handbook of macroeconomics, 1, 1305-1340.

43. Shiller, R. J. (1984). Stock prices and social dynamics. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2(1984), 457-498.

44. Sperry, R. (1982). Some effects of disconnecting the cerebral hemispheres. Bioscience reports, 2(5), 265-276.

45. Sternberg, R. J., &; Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style? American psychologist, 52(7), 700.


46. Smith, A., Stewart, D., Black, J., &; Hutton, J. (1795). Essays on philosophical subjects: Printed for Wogan, Byrne.

47. Taleb, N. N. (2010). The Black Swan:: The Impact of the Highly Improbable Fragility: Random House LLC.

48. Tversky, A., &; Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.

49. Tversky, A., &; Shafir, E. (1992). The disjunction effect in choice under uncertainty. Psychological science, 3(5), 305-309.

50. Tversky, A., &; Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458.

51. Würtz, E. (2005). Intercultural Communication on Web sites: A Cross‐Cultural Analysis of Web sites from High‐Context Cultures and Low‐Context Cultures. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 11(1), 274-299.

52. Van Raaij, W. F. (1981). Economic psychology. Journal of Economic Psychology, 1(1), 1-24.

53. Weber, E. U., Blais, A. R., &; Betz, N. E. (2002). A domain‐specific risk‐attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of behavioral decision making, 15(4), 263-290.

54. Witkin, H. A. (1971). A manual for the embedded figures tests: Consulting Psychologists Press.

55. Witkin, H. A., &; Goodenough, D. R. (1977). Field dependence and interpersonal behavior. Psychological bulletin, 84(4), 661.

56. 周賓凰, 池祥萱, 周冠男, &; 龔怡霖. (2002). 行為財務學: 文獻回顧與展望. Review of Securities &; Futures Markets, 14(2), 1-48.

57. 連兆祥. (2003). 公開推薦資訊與投資者人格特質對其操作策略和投資績效影響之研究. 成功大學工業管理科學系學位論文, 1-68.

58. 陳柏榮, 林問一, 林俊銘. (2013). 經驗對台灣股票市場的分析師行為之影響. 台灣金融財務季刊, 14(2), 19-40.

59. 何亮君(2010).共同基金投資人行為及偏好.

60. Hello Quiz, 2014, http://helloquizzy.okcupid.com/quizzy/browse
61. 富蘭克林基金理財網, 2014, http://www.franklin.com.tw/Abroad
62. MoneyDJ理財網,2014, http://www.moneydj.com/funddj/yb/yp905000.djhtm
63. 中華民國證券投資信託暨顧問商業同業公會,2014, http://www.sitca.org.tw/Default.aspx
64. 中時電子報, 2013, http://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20130522000752-260110
65. 施羅德台灣,2014, http://www.schroders.com.tw/index.html
66. 中央研究院調查研究專題中心,2014, https://srda.sinica.edu.tw/search/gensciitem/382