THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF STRENGTH AND WEIGHT IN PROCESSING NEW INFORMATION IN THE COLLEGE FOOTBALL BETTING MARKET

Main Article Content

Greg Durham
Mukunthan Santhanakrishnan

Abstract

Griffin and Tversky (1992) suggest that individuals, when formulating posterior probabilities based on the available evidence, tend to overreact to a new piece of evidence’s strength while underreacting to the relative importance of its weight.  We test this prediction using the college football betting market, a market that is commonly employed in tests for efficiency and rationality.  Using average points in excess of the spread and streak against the spread as measures for strength and weight, respectively, we find that bettors overreact to strength and underreact to weight.  These results are consistent with the predictions of Griffin and Tversky, as well as with the findings of Sorescu and Subrahmanyam (2006) and Barberis, Shleifer, and Vishny (1998) in financial market settings.  Our work also provides insight into how behavioral biases might affect price-formation processes in other markets.The authors thank Tod Perry, Omar Shehryar, and Kumar Venkataraman for their careful feedback and thoughtful suggestions.  The authors are also grateful for comments from seminar participants at the 2008 Midwest Finance Association meetings in San Antonio and 2008 Southwestern Finance Association meetings in Houston, as well as from seminar participants at Montana State University.  (The authors are responsible for any outstanding errors in this paper.)

Article Details

Section
Articles

References

Avery, C., Chevalier, J., “Identifying Investor Sentiment from Price Paths: the Case of Football Betting” [1999] Journal of Business 72 at pp 493-521.

Barberis, N., Shleifer, A., Vishny, R., “A Model of Investor Sentiment” [1998] Journal of Financial Economics 49 at pp 307-343.

Bond, M., “Finding Universal Dimensions of Individual Variation in Multicultural Studies of Values: the Rokeach and Chinese Value Surveys” [1988] Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55 at pp 1009-1015.

Dare, W., MacDonald, S., “A Generalized Model for Testing the Home and Favorite Team Advantage in Point Spread Markets” [1996] Journal of Financial Economics 40 at pp 295-318.

Denis, D., McConnell, J., Ovtchinnikov, A., Yu, Y., “S&P 500 Index Additions and Earnings Expectations” [2003] Journal of Finance 58 at pp 1821-1840.

Durham, G., Hertzel, M., Martin, J., “The Market Impact of Trends and Sequences in Performance: New Evidence” [2005] Journal of Finance 60 at pp 2551-2569.

Durvasula, S., Andrews, J., Lysonski, S., Netemeyer, R., “Assessing the Cross-National Applicability of Consumer Behavior Models: a Model of Attitude Toward Advertising in General” [1993] Journal of Consumer Research 19 at pp 626-636.

Edwards, W., “Conservatism in Human Information Processing” in Formal Representation of Human Judgment (ed. B. Kleinmutz) (New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1968) at pp 17-52.

Fama, E., French, K., “The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns” [1992] Journal of Finance 47 at pp 427-465.

Griffin, D., Tversky, A., “The Weighing of Evidence and the Determinants of Confidence” [1992] Cognitive Psychology 24 at pp 411-435.

Jegadeesh, N., Titman, S., “Returns to Buying Winners and Selling Losers: Implications For Stock Market Efficiency” [1993] Journal of Finance 48 at pp 65-91.

Sorescu, S., Subrahmanyam, A., “The Cross-Section of Analyst Recommendations” [2006] Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 41 (1) at pp 139-168.

Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., “Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases” [1974] Science 185 at pp 1124-1131.