ArticleJournal of gambling studies2026
Is Overconfidence a Risk Factor for Excessive Trading?
Article in Journal of gambling studies, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Gambling and trading involve similar risks and can be practiced excessively. No study has addressed cognitive distortions in excessive trading during decision-making in experimental task, though the illusion of control is well established in gambling. Overconfidence, closely related to the illusion of control, may be a cognitive factor in excessive trading. Overconfidence is a construct including overestimation, overplacement and overprecision. This study investigated the relationship between overconfidence in simulated financial decision-making involving technical analysis and the likelihood of excessive trading among individual investors. Seventy individual investors (N = 70), who traded at least once the two weeks prior to recruitment and used technical analysis for most of their trade, took part in a simulated trading task involving technical analysis during which overestimation and overplacement were assessed. Excessive trading was assessed using the Problem Gambling Severity Index adapted for trading. Results from logistic regression show that overestimation, but not overplacement, distinguishes individual investors with no-to-low risk of excessive trading from those at moderate-to-high risk. The more individual investors of our sample tended to overestimate their performance in a simulated trading task involving technical analysis the more likely they were to show moderate-to-high risk of excessive trading. These results are coherent with observations made in problem gamblers, indicating that the risk of problem gambling increases with the degree of belief in cognitive distortions. The discussion includes potential adaptations of the overplacement measure and the decision-making tasks, with consideration for potential variables to further grow knowledge of risk factors of excessive trading.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41706355What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.