The dynamics of familiarity bias during extreme events: Investor responses across industries
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.22(3).2025.04
-
Article InfoVolume 22 2025, Issue #3, pp. 49-63
- 224 Views
-
54 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
The efficient market hypothesis is struggling to explain market behavior during rare, high-impact events. In such uncertain times, familiarity guides the decisions, allowing the brain to rely on subconscious processing for optimal outcomes. Therefore, this research aimed to examine the relationship between elevated familiarity bias and abnormal returns during rare events. Data were collected from all companies listed and active on the Indonesia Stock Exchange from 1997 to 2020. A systematic sampling method was used to establish the sample criteria, which led to a total of 5,615 observations derived from the number of trading days over 23 years across nine industries on the Indonesian Stock Exchange. The data collected were analyzed using the traditional Capital Asset Pricing Model, prospect theory and extending the Fama and French three-factor model with the addition of a psychological factor. The results show that familiarity bias behavior does not uniformly occur across all industries in Indonesia during rare events. The industries negatively impacted by these events include agriculture, consumer goods, trade services and investment, finance, basic industry, chemicals, mining, miscellaneous industries, property, real estate and building construction at values of –0.0847, –0.0946, –0.0721, -0.0405, –0.0717, –0.1258, –0.024, and –0.0805, respectively. A positive impact was only found in the infrastructure, utilities, and transportation industry at 0.0028. In conclusion, stock market behavior also affects the economy from a behavioral finance perspective.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)G01, G11, G41
-
References37
-
Tables5
-
Figures2
-
- Figure 1. Familiarity bias per quartile returns
- Figure 2. Familiarity bias in buy and sell imbalances based on rare events and portfolio categories
-
- Table 1. Summary statistics
- Table 2. Summary statistics of rare events
- Table 3. The results of hypothesis testing obtained through regression analysis
- Table 4. The estimation results of familiarity, rare events and interactions
- Table 5. Sub-sampling regression analysis results
-
- Ackert, l. F., Church, B. K., Tompkins, J., & Zhang, P. (2005). What’s in a name? An experimental examination of investment behavior. Review of Finance, 9(2), 281-304.
- Agarwal, V., Taffler, R. J., & Wang, C. (2025). Investor emotions and market bubbles. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 64, 339-369.
- Akhtaruzzaman, M., Sensoy, A., & Corbet, S. (2020). The influence of bitcoin on portfolio diversification and design. Finance Research Letters, 37, 1-15.
- Ali, K., Ashfaque, M., Saleem, A., Bárczi, J., & Sági, J. (2022). Did the islamic stock index provide shelter for investors during the covid-19 crisis? Evidence from an emerging stock market. Risks, 10(6), 1-14.
- Arena, M. P., & Howe, J. S. (2008). A face can launch a thousand shares and abnormal return. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 9(3), 107-116.
- Bacovic, M., Andrijasevic, Z., & Pejovic, B. (2022). Stem education and growth in europe. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 13, 2348-2371.
- Baker, H. K., & Nofsinger, J. R. (2010). Behavioral finance investors corporations and markets. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, inc.
- Banerjee, S., & David, R. (2024). Does esg really matter? Accessing the relevance of esg in indian investors’ decision-making dynamics. Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, 17(4), 805-829.
- Bekierman, J. (2018). Asset volatility with prospect theory investors. Quantitative Finance, 19(4), 533-543.
- Bromiley, P. (2010). Looking at prospect theory. Strategic Management Journal, 31(12), 1357-1370.
- Budiarso, N. S., & Soleman, R. (2020). Investor behavior under the covid-19 pandemic: the case of Indonesia. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 17(3), 308-318.
- Cao, H. H., Han, B., Hirshleifer, D., & Zhang, H. H. (2011). Fear of the unknown: familiarity and economic decisions. Review of Finance, 15(1), 173-206.
- Corbet, S., Larkin, C., & Lucey, B. (2020). The contagion effects of the covid-19 pandemic: evidence from gold and cryptocurrencies. Financial Research Letters, 35, 1-7.
- Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: what, why, when, and how. New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
- Dias, R., Teixeira, N., Machova, V., Pardal, P., Horak, J., & Vochozka, M. (2020). Random walks and market efficiency tests: evidence on us, chinese and european capital markets within the context of the global covid-19 pandemic. Oeconomia Copernicana, 11(4), 585-608.
- Dima, B., Dima, Ş. M., & Ioan, R. (2021). Remarks on the behaviour of financial market efficiency during the covid-19 pandemic. The case of vix. Finance Research Letters, 43, 1-9.
- Fama, E. F., & French, K. R.. (1992). The cross-section of expected stock returns. The Journal of Finance, 47(2), 427-465.
- Fama, E. F. (1998). Market efficiency, long-term returns, and behavioral finance. Journal of Financial Economics, 49(3), 283-306.
- Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (2012). Size, value, and momentum in international stock returns. Journal of Financial Economics, 105(3), 457-472.
- Gaar, E. (2022). The home bias and the local bias: a survey. Management Review Quarterly, 72, 21-57.
- Gröschl, S., & Lepoutre, J. (2022). Don’t panic: remaining el captain while navigating unpreparedness in response to extreme events. Journal of Management Inquiry, 33(1), 1-14.
- Hasler, M., & Martineau, C. (2022). Explaining the failure of the unconditional capm with the conditional capm. Management Science, 69(3), 1323-1934.
- Heath, C., & Tversky, A. (1991). Preference and belief under uncertainty ambiguity and competence in choice. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4, 5-28.
- Hiraki, T., Ito, A., & Kuroki, F. (2003). Investor familiarity and home bias: Japanese evidence. Asia-Pacific Financial Markets, 10, 281-300.
- Kaya, E. (2020). Relative performances of asset pricing models for bust 100 index. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting, 50(3), 280-301.
- Kwatra, M. (2020). Behavioral finance and stock performance: biases influencing the market. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 25(7), 66-69.
- Lei, S., & Mathers, A. M. (2024). Familiarity bias in direct stock investment by individual investors. Review of Behavioral Finance, 16(3), 551-579.
- Martin, I. W., & Nagel, S. (2022). Market efficiency in the age of big data. Journal of Financial Economics, 145(1), 154-177.
- Mukoyi, L., & Ogujiuba, K. K. (2022). Comparison of multifactor asset pricing models in the south african stock market [2000–2016]. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 16(1), 1-22.
- Nijescu, D. C., & Anghel, C. (2022). International banking, crises and strategic interests. Theoretical and Applied Economics, 2(631), 5-24.
- Rasool, N., & Ullah, S. (2020). Financial literacy and behavioural biases of individual investors: empirical evidence of pakistan stock exchange. Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science, 25(50), 261-278.
- Seiler, M., Seiler, V., Traub, S., & Harrison, D. (2020). Familiarity bias and the status quo alternative. Journal of Housing Research, 17(2), 139-154.
- Silva, P. P. (2022). Market efficiency and the capacity of stock prices to track a firm’s future profitability. Borsa Istanbul Review, 22(3), 452-464.
- Speidell, l. S. (2009). Investing in the unknown and the unknowable—behavioral finance in frontier markets. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 10(1), 1-8.
- Stewart, D. W. (2020). Uncertainty and risk are multidimensional: lessons from the covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 40(1), 97-98.
- Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297-323.
- Zhong, Y., Li, Y., Yang, Y., Li, T., & Jia, Y. (2022). An improved three-way decision model based on prospect theory. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 142, 109-129.