Behavioural Economics, Finance and Accounting

Entrepreneurship and Management 2018 University of Social Sciences Publishing House | ISSN 2543-8190 Volume XIX | Issue 1 | Part 1 | pp. 119–130

Dominika Korzeniowska | [email protected] University of Social Sciences, Department of Finance and Accounting

Behavioural Economics, Finance and Accounting – Problems with Defining the Subject of Research Abstract: The article presents the research subject of three new sub-disciplines that are representatives of the behavioral trend in the field of economic sciences, (i.e. behavioral economics, behavioral finance and behavioral accounting) based on their definitions in the academic literature on the subject. Problem related to the classification of their mother disciplines (economics, finance and accounting) shapes the background of this work . The paper is based on the literature study (source analysis), mainly of international journals or books. The carried out analysis provides the basis for stating that the processes of creating autonomy and in consequence identity of these sub-disciplines are in the early phase of ad� vancement. The question remains open to what extent they will be subject to the processes of specialization or integration of science. Key words: behavioural economics, behavioural finance, behavioural accounting, defini� tions, discipline’s identity

Introduction The issue of the interdisciplinary nature, its causes, manifestations, forms and variations has been vastly discussed in the scientific literature over the recent years [Dudziak 2013]. Setting aside the debate on the need and significance of fragmentation and integration of scientific knowledge, the development of the interdisciplinary approach causes sub� stantial problems in terms of classification of disciplines, which is vital for institutional decisions, research funding or protection of scientists’ interests. Scholars might be faced with the dilemma of choosing the field of interests, selection of researched subjects, in� dividual career paths and promotion. The tendency to construct descriptions of reality, taking into account perspectives of multiple disciplines, embraced economic sciences as well. The undermining of the main paradigm of homo oeconomicus caused growing in�

Dominika Korzeniowska

terest into the notions and methodology of psychology and sociology. The dynamically developing behavioural trend (which comprises behavioural economics, behavioural finance and behavioural accounting) is an expression of these divergent quests. Within this trend, so called neuroscience (e.g. neuroeconomics, neurofinance, neuroaccoun� ting, neuromarketing) also appeared. Branches of neuroscience draw profusely from methods used in biology, medicine or chemistry (e.g. magnetic resonance imaging, electroencephalography or positron emission tomography) [Artienwicz 2015]. Yet, they will not be relevant herein. The origins or the essence of behavioural economics, finance or accounting could be found in the academic literature. Yet, they are mostly treated separately [Zalega 2015; Korzeniowska 2016; Zielonka 2003], though behavioral finance is quite often regarded as the element, component or school within behavioral economics [Zygan 2013]. However, there is a dearth of studies presenting the subject of those three (sub-)disciplines from the point of view of shaping their identity and also classification challenges mentioned above (“putting science in order”). Both can be seen in the way how research or didactics are organized, in scientific advancement cases where the professional estimation of achievements must be carried out by a qualified reviewer [Gorynia 2016], or in resear� chers’ sense of belonging to the particular scientific discipline. The paper is an attempt to fill in the gap in this field. Its objective is to present and analyze definitions of behavio� ral economics, behavioral finance and behavioral accounting. Their quality is treated as an indicator of the level of self-reflection of the research community functioning in these fields in terms of what these subdisciplines are, what they deal with and as one of the determinants of separateness versus similarities, convergences, or integration of these problems. This reflection will be presented against the background of quandaries over classification of their mother disciplines, namely economics, finance and accounting. It needs mentioning that the subject of behavioral sub-disciplines can also be shown by the analysis of the empirical research fields conducted within their scope. However, due to the volume of the article, it is not possible to describe it in both ways. Neither will this paper continue the reflection on behaviorism (as a direction in scien� tific psychology) in economic sciences, which lay at the basis of these three areas, as it has already been comprehensively presented by other authors [Zalega 2015; Sulik-Górecka, Strojek-Filus 2015], nor the legitimacy of using the cognomen “behavioral” for the three analyzed subdisciplines [Nowak 2015]. The issue of assuming the irrationality of human choices, which delimits behavioral economics, finances and accounting from their traditional versions, will not be taken either. It has been already covered by No� wak [2007], Brzezicka and Wiśniewski [2014].

120

Behavioural Economics, Finance and Accounting – Problems with Defining the Subject of Research

Problems with the classification of disciplines in the field of mainstream economics When it comes to the mother disciplines of behavioral economics, behavioral finance, and behavioral accounting, in accordance with Polish Regulation of the Minister of Scien� ce and Higher Education of 8.08.2011 on the areas of knowledge, science and art, and scientific and artistic disciplines [Dz. U. 2011.179.1065] four disciplines are distinguis� hed in the area of social sciences and within the field of economic sciences. These are: economics, finance, management sciences and commodity science. The reason for the discernible absence of the accounting, that has not yet been acclaimed as the separate discipline in Poland, is extensively analyzed in works of various scholars i.e. Bąk [2013], Szychta [2015], Sobczak [2016]. However, there is a point that “research and scientific the� ories referring to the system of accounting, form the unified core of knowledge deman� ding institutional recognition in Poland as a separate scientific discipline” [Szychta 2015, p. 26]. Interestingly enough, such problems remain unknown in the Western world whe� re accounting is recognized as a separate science [Szychta 2015]. In Poland, academic degrees may be awarded in the field of economics and finance (in case of finance only from 2010 [Resolution of the Central Commission for Degrees and Titles of April 23, 2010 amending the Resolution on defining the areas of science and art, published in 2010 in “Monitor Polski” no. 46 item 636], but such degrees are inexistent in the field of accounting. Other division of areas of interest in economics was established on the basis of Journal of Economic Literature [Gorynia 2016]. There are twenty general categories: General Eco� nomics and Teaching, History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Appro� aches, Mathematical and Quantitative Methods, Microeconomics, Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics, International Economics, Financial Economics, Public Economics, Health, Education, and Welfare, Labor and Demographic Economics, Law and Economics, Industrial Organization, Business Administration and Business Economics, Marketing, Accounting, Personnel Economics, Economic History, Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change and Growth, Economic Systems, Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics, Environmental and Ecological Economics, Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate and Transportation Economics, Miscellaneous Categories and Other Special Topics. Conse� quently, “economics” incorporates the concepts of finance and accounting. “Accounting” was mentioned by name, yet “finance” could be found in Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics, Financial Economics or Mathematical and Quantitive Methods. Taking into account the latest proposals for changes in the division of scientific disci� plines in Poland [Gutowski 2018], OECD classification must be evoked as it will constitute 121


the basis for a new order. It assumes that the field of social sciences and the “economics and business” sub-discipline include: economics and econometrics, industrial relations, and business and management. It means that the nomenclature “finance” and “acco� unting” is not even mentioned. Furthermore, observing the trend to limit the amount of separate disciplines, it is highly possible that there will be no room for independent classification of finance and accounting. In short, it is difficult to discern a consistent approach that would clearly prove the “independence” of finance and especially accounting, from economics. Hence, ascribing behaviourally profiled analyses (in particular those devoted to financial and accounting phenomena) to relevant sub-disciplines, is complicated and highly subjective. It de� pends on the scholar, since his decisions may be a result of adopting legal solutions, or they can be the reflection of his views on the specialization or integration of sciences, including his support for creating an independent discipline (what can be the case espe� cially for behavioral accounting).

Ways of defining behavioral economics, finance and accounting The term “behavioral economics” was mentioned for the first time in 1958, in the work of K. Boulding. It was indicated that there is a need for studying human imagination or emotional and cognitive structures that impact economic decisions [Angner, Lo� ewenstein 2006, p. 658]. Thus, the idea of acquiring knowledge of psychosocial fun� ctioning of a man that would allow to explain the economic phenomena occurred. That is how the definition of Cartwright [2011] specifies the core of behavioral eco� nomics. He determines it as the science that applies conclusions from laboratory ex� periments, psychology and various social sciences in economics. Obviously, in many presentations it is underlined that “behavioral economics increase the explanatory power of economics by providing it with more realistic psychological foundations” [Camerer, Loewenstein 2004, p. 3]. It can be illustrated by Maital’s [1986] definition which states that “behavioral economy aims to enrich analytical economics by incre� asing their relevance”. In the approach proposed by Polish authors, the subject’s de� signata of behavioral economics is narrowed down from the point of view of the scale of using the findings on human behavior. In their opinion, it tries to construct more realistic models of thinking and of economical behavior which, by using the achievements of psychology that is equipped with appropriate descriptive theories, helps to explain human imperfections, limitations and insufficient rationality [Brze� ziński, Gorynia, Hockuba 2008, pp. 217–218]. 122


Just [2014, p. 1] proposes another approach, inspired by economical knowledge. If economics is science that examines in what way limited resources are allocated against unlimited needs, then behavioral economics studies how limited decision resources are allocated. Behavioral economists, as he states, focus frequently on how people regularly do not take decisions which are compatible with the homo oeconomicus model. It is, the� refore, a description of human conduct in the process of allocation of limited decision resources. By this, behavioral economics constantly refers to standard economic model and presents behavioral anomalies (occurrences that are scientifically hard to explain or are its contradiction). This is how Brzezicka and Wiśniewski [2014, p. 354] describe behavioral economics: “behavioral economics is an experimental science that uses the scientific approach to test and better understand economic theories. (…) Behavioral economics combines various fields of study, often unrelated, that are unified by a com� mon goal, namely, an attempt to explain anomalies in mainstream economics”. The aforementioned definitions and descriptions of what behavioral economics deal with, demonstrate that its core is seen from different angles. On the one hand, it includes all applications of psychosocial knowledge within the scope of economic phenomena, on the other hand, there are occasionally endeavors to clarify their descriptions, such as the above mentioned definition of Brzezicka and Wiśniewski. If it comes to behavioral finance, two following components of its defining are vi� tal: behaviour of investors and financial markets. It is presumably the result of ongoing discussion on hypotheses regarding the efficiency of markets and the rationality of decisions made by investors [Park, Sohn 2013]. Depending on the approach adopted in this field, we encounter various definitions of this sub-discipline. If there is an im� pact on behavior of investors, following definitions can be provided: a) behavioral fi� nance is “study of how human interprets and act on information to make informed investment decisions” [Lintner 1998], b) behavioral finance “attempts to explain and increase understanding of the reasoning patterns of investors, including the emotio� nal processes involved and the degree to which they influence the decision-making process. Essentially, behavioral finance attempts to explain the what, why, and how of finance and investing, from a human perspective” [Ricciardi, Simon 2000, p. 2], c) “be� havioral finances deal with studying investors’ behaviours in financial markets with the use of psychological aspects” [Zielonka 2003], d) “the core of behavioral approach to finances is (…) searching for psychological mechanisms of behavior of financial market participants” [Tyszka 2003]. If we put emphasis on reactions of financial market, we can cite the following defini� tions: a) behavioral finance “seeks to understand and predict systematic financial market implications of psychological decision process” [Olsen 1997, pp. 62–66] b) “behavioral 123


finance provides insight into why and how market can be inefficient due to irrationality in human behaviour” [Sewell 2007]. There are also definitions that apparently do not draw attention to the behavior of neither investors nor the financial market itself. Examples of this approach are: behavio� ral finances are a) “a specific combination of individual behavior and market phenomena and apply the knowledge from both psychology and the finance theory” [Weber, Came� rer 1998, pp. 167–185], b) “behavioral finance closely combines individual behavior and market phenomena and uses knowledge taken from both the psychological field and fi� nancial theory” [Fromlet 2001], c) “behavioral finance is the study of how psychology affe� cts financial decision making and financial markets” [Shefrin 2001], d) “behavioral finance is new approach to financial markets that argues that some financial phenomena can be understood by using models where some agents are not fully rational” [Forbes 2009]. Several authors define behavioral finance as a part of behavioral economy: “Beha� vioral finance, as a part of behavioral economics, is that branch of finance that, with the help of theories from other behavioral sciences, particularly psychology and so� ciology, tries to discover and explain phenomena inconsistent with the paradigm of expected utility of wealth and narrowly defined rational behaviour” [Frankfurter, Mc� Goun 2002]. Gilovich [1999] proposes a similar approach. Irrespectively of which element of the approach is highlighted, the aforementio� ned quotations indicate that behavioral finance is most often defined in quite a narrow way. The subject of finance (mainstream) also deals with other entities than investors, its range is much wider (i.e. public finance, bank finance, insurance finance, corporate finance, household finances) and it does not restrain exclusively to financial markets. The definition of Nofsinger [2006, p. 21] can be perceived as an attempt to capture the subject of behavioral finances from a greater perspective: “Behaviourism in finance examines what people’s relation towards their own finances. To be more precise, it studies the impact of psyche on financial decisions of society, corporations and whole markets”. Flejterski [2007, p. 115] points out that behavioral finance study how people behave in relation to their own finances and, to be more exact, they examine how psy� che influences each financial decision”. The process of defining the subject of behavioral accounting is at its beginning stage. It is often generalized and viewed as “the multidisciplinary field that draws from the theoretical constructs of the behavioral sciences” [Lord 1989, pp. 124–149] or it is said that “behavioral accounting is an offspring from the union of accounting and behavioral science (Report of The Commitee 127). It represents the application of the method and outlook of behavioral science to accounting problems”. Its fundamental assumption is to predict human behavior in all possible accounting aspects [Belkaoui 1989]. Siegel, Ramanauskas-Marconi [1999] add 124


that it is the dimension of accounting related to human conduct and its relation to planning, construction and use of effective system of accounting. Cieciura [2015, p. 36] presents similar thesis: “It deals with issues that concern behavior of people involved in accounting system”. Belkaoui clarifies that “behavioral accounting emphasizes the relevance of accounting infor� mation to decision making as well as the individual and group behavior cause by the com� munication of this information”, what is more, “its purpose is to influence action or behavior directly through the information content of the message conveyed and indirectly through the behavior of accountants” [Belkaoui 1989, preface]. He also draws attention to group be� havior, including behavior of accountants. Hence, it can be concluded that behavioral accounting includes in its concept three dimensions of analysis: impact of accounting functions on behavior, behavior of acco� untants and the influence of accounting information on its addressee (including nonaccountants) [Hofstedt, Kinard 1970, p. 43]. Having analyzed above definitions concerning three behavioral sub-disciplines, it should be reckoned that they are very general and seem to look as initial conceptualiza� tions or even drafts. In fact, one may say that their definitions can be paraphrased that they are the application of behavioral sciences in economics, finance and accounting respectively. At the same time, there is no clear basis to determine whether a scholar referring to the term “accounting” means just a part of economics, or whether he under� stands it as an independent discipline. It also remains unclear if the author who refers to the term “economics” embraces in its meaning finance and accounting or not. Defini� tions quoted above fail to clarify it. Taking into account numerous attempts to define the subject of behavioral disciplines, it proves to be a challenge to unambiguously define their conceptual scope. It can only be presumed that possible conflict of interests regar� ding the independence of mother disciplines is transferred to the field of defining the subject of their behavioral counterparts. Only behavioral finance are in a different posi� tion. As mentioned above, the vast majority of authors present them explicitly as one of the schools within the scope of behavioral economics. That is because behavioral finan� ce, in agreement with the most common approach in literature, refer entirely to financial markets (without any doubt, financial markets are within mainstream finance [Flejeter� ski 2007]). Issues related to taxes or insurance (that in the classical approach also belong to finance [ibid]) were absorbed by behavioral economics. It is therefore questionable if a broad view on behavioral finance (as it was presented by several academics) would be more consistent from the point of view of the (still binding) distinction between “mother disciplines”. It would also open a much wider field for the study on various types of fi� nancial behavior. Following this logic, taxes, insurance, banking and corporate finance should be classified as representatives of behavioral finance. Some steps in this direction 125


can already be noted in the academic literature (i.e. Behavioral Finance in Enterprises [Gajdka 2013], Behavioral Public Finance [McCaffery, Slemrod 2006], Behavioral Finance for Private Banking [Bachmann, De Giorgi, Hens 2018], Behavioral Finance Concepts for Actuaries [Stark 2014], Behavioral insurance: Theory and experiments [Richter, Schiller, Schlesinger 2014]). If the definition of behavioral economics is taken from a broader perspective, it can be stated that behavioral economics incorporates not only behavioral finance but also captures the concept of behavioral accounting. It should be considered whether the no� tion of “behavioral economics” ought to include all phenomena in the field of economic sciences or rather only those related to the discipline of economics. In the first case, both behavioral finance and behavioral accounting are to be considered as schools that fun� ction within the scope of behavioral economics. Such an approach is not propagated in the academic literature, though. Behavioral accountants tend to put emphasis on their independence. Historical reasons are indicative of their own autonomy. Despite the fact that in the roots of the three (or two, if behavioral finance constitutes a part of behavioral economics) sub-disciplines, the achievements of the same scholars (i.e. Smith, Bentham, Edgeworth) are enumerated, significant items of the academic literature on behavioral economics came out in the fifties of the twentieth century with the bounded rationality concept by Simon [1955] and study on the influence of budgeting on behavior by Argy� ris [1952]. For behavioral finance we can talk rather about the seventies, when there was an ongoing discussion about the efficiency and predictability of the market, the criticism of the CAPM model etc. [Zielonka 2003].

Conclusion The analysis of the aforementioned definitions of the three representatives of the beha� vioral field in economic sciences allows to conclude that their definiens is predominantly presented in general terms, that is why it is difficult to determine what they are actually concerned with. In reviewing the literature on this subject, that are mostly research out� comes, one can get the impression that definitions included there are formulated ad hoc and their aim is rather to assign the study to one of the sub-disciplines discussed in this paper than to deliberate on their independence. For these reasons, at this point, a survey of areas for exploration seems to be a better method to outline their subject. Yet this is a topic for another study. Scholars who work in the behavioral field of economical scien� ces seem to focus predominantly on their empirical aspects, namely extensive research activities and the distribution of the results. In the literature on this subject, there is no mention of discourse on the autonomy and identity of sub-disciplines functioning within 126


its scope. It is hard to predict what direction it will take in the future. There is a possibility that a “behavioral sciences of economics” sub-discipline will arise or “mother disciplines” will take over the achievements of their behavioral “daughters” and the adjustment of the actual paradigm will take place.

References Angner E., Loewenstein G. (2006), Behavioral Economics [in:] P. Thagard, J. Woods (eds.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, Elsevier, Amsterdam. Argyris C. (1952), The impact of budgets on people, Controllership Foundation, New York. Artienwicz N. (2015), Neurorachunkowość jako potencjalny, ale trudny kierunek rozwoju rachunkowości, “Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości”, Vol. 82 (138), pp. 9–18. Bachmann K.K, De Giorgi E.G., Hens T. (2018), Behavioral Finance for Private Banking. From the Art of Advice to the Science of Advice, Wiley Finance Series. Bąk M. (2013), Wybrane problemy rachunkowości – jej status naukowy i obszary badawcze, “Zeszy� ty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości”, Vol. 71 (127), pp. 55–75. Belkaoui A. (1989), Behavioral Accounting. The Research and Practical Issues, Quorum Books. Brzezicka J., Wiśniewski R. (2014), Homo Oeconomicus and Behavioral Economics, “Contempo� rary Economics”, Vol. 8, Iss. 4, pp. 353–364. Brzeziński M., Gorynia M., Hockuba Z. (2008) Ekonomia a inne nauki społeczne na początku XXI w. Między imperializmem a korporacją, “Ekonomista”, No. 2, pp. 201–232. Camerer C.F., Loewenstein G. (2004), Behavioral Economics: Past, Present, Future [in:] C.F. Ca� merer, G. Loewenstein, M. Rabin (eds.), Advances in Behavioral Economics, Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford. Cartwright E. (2011), Behavioral Economics, Routhledge, London and NY, Kindle Edition, loc. 116. Cieciura M. (2015), Behawioralne aspekty rachunkowości we współczesnej gospodarce – zarys problemu, „Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu”, Nr 388, pp. 32–40. 127


Dudziak S. (2013), Ekonomia behawioralna – interdyscyplinarne podejście do zachowań ekonomicznych, “Studia i prace Wydziału Nauk Ekonomicznych i Zarządzania”, No. 32, pp. 23–35. Flejterski S. (2007), Metodologia finansów. Podręcznik akademicki, PWN, Warszawa. Forbes W. (2009), Behavioral Finance [online], www.online.wileylibrary.com, access date: 25.02.2018 Frankfurter G., McGoun E. (2002), Resistance is Futile: The Assimilation of Behavioral Finance, “Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation”, No. 48:4, pp. 375–389. Fromlet H. (2001), Behavioral Finance- Theory and practical Application, “Business Economics”, No. 36, p. 3. Gajdka J. (2013), Behawioralne finanse przedsiębiorstw. Podstawowe podejścia i koncepcje, Wyd. UŁ. Gilovich T., Griffin D. (2002), Introduction — Heuristics and biases: Then and now [in:] T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, D. Kahneman (eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment, NY and Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–18. Gorynia M. (2016), Nauki ekonomiczne a postulat interdyscyplinarności [in] S. Czaja, A. Graczyk (eds.), Ekonomia i środowisko, Wyd. UE we Wrocławiu, Wrocław, pp. 122–130. Gutowski P. (2018), Nowy podział dyscyplin naukowych, http://istotnie.pl/nowy-podzial-dyscy� plin-naukowych; access date: 22.02.2018 Hofstedt T.R., Kinard J.C. (1970), A strategy for behavioral accounting research, “The Accounting Review”, Jan. 1970. Just D.R. (2014), Introduction to Behavioral Economics: noneconomic factors that shape economic decisions, Wiley & Sons, Hoboken. Korzeniowska D. (2016), Rozwój problematyki rachunkowości behawioralnej, “Przedsiębiorczość i Zarządzanie”, Vol. XVII, Iss. 9, P. 1. Lintner G. (1998) Behavioral Finance. Why Investors make bad decisions, “The Planner”, 13(1), pp. 7–8. 128


Lord A.T. (1989), The development of behavioral thought in accounting, 1952–1981, “Behavioral Research in Accounting”, Vol. 1, pp. 124–149. Maital S. (1986), International Conference on Economic and Psychology, Choice and Exchange, Kib� butz Shefayim, Israel, 9–11.07.1986. McCaffery E. J., Slemrod J. (eds.) (2006), Behavioral Public Finance, The Russel Sage Founda� tion, NY. Nofsinger J. R. (2006), Psychologia Inwestowania, Helion, Gliwice. Nowak M. (2007), Finanse behawioralne jako nowy kierunek analizy racjonalności inwestorów na rynkach finansowych, “Prace Instytutu Prawa i Administracji PWSZ w Sulechowie”, pp. 243–254. Nowak M. (2015), Pomiędzy rachunkowością a psami Pawłowa, czyli krytyka pojęcia „rachunkowość behawioralna”, “Prace naukowe UE we Wrocławiu”, No. 389, pp. 287–296. Olsen R. (1998), Behavioral Finance and its implications for stock price volatility, “Financial Ana� lysts Journal”, No. 54(2), pp. 10–18. Park H, Sohn W. (2013), Behavioral Finance: A Survey of the Literature and Recent Development, “Seoul Journal of Business”, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 3–41. Resolution of the Central Commission for Degrees and Titles of April 23 2010, amending the Resolution on defining the areas of science and art, “Monitor Polski” No. 46, item 636 [online], http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WMP20100460636/O/M20100636.pdf; access: 25.02.2018. Ricciardi V., Simon K.H. (2000), What is Behavioral Finance?, “Business, Education & Technology Journal”, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 1–9 Richter A., Schiller J., Schlesinger H. (2014) Behavioral insurance: Theory and experiments, “Jou� rnal of Risk and Uncertainty”, Vol. 48, Iss. 2, pp. 85–96. Sewell M. (2007), Behavioral Finance, University of Cambridge Press [online], http://www.beha� viouralfinance.net/, access: 24.02.2018.

129


Shefrin H. (2001), Behavioral Corporate Finance, “Journal of Applied Corporate Finance”, Vol. 14, Iss. 3, pp. 113–126. Siegel G., Ramanauskas-Marconi H. (1999), Behavioral Accounting, Thomson South-Western. Simon H. (1955), A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice, “Quarterly Journal of Economics”, Vol. 69, pp. 99–118. Sobczak T. (2016), Rozwój instytucjonalny rachunkowości w Polsce, “Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachun� kowości”, T. 89(145), pp. 133–149. Stark J. (2014), Behavioral Finance Concepts for Actuaries, “Health Watch”, Iss. 74, pp. 26–28. Sulik-Górecka A, Strojek-Filus M. (2015), Problemy behawioralne rachunkowości, “Zeszyty Na� ukowe UE w Katowicach”, No. 252, pp. 107–117. Szychta A. (2015), Przedmiot, cele i teorie nauki rachunkowości, “Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunko� wości”, Vol. 85 (141), pp. 9–35. Tyszka T. (ed.) (2003), Psychologia ekonomiczna, GWP, Gdańsk. Weber M., Camerer C. F. (1998), The Disposition Effect in Securities Trading: An Experimental Analysis, “Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization”, No. 33(2), pp. 167–184. Zalega T. (2015), Ekonomia behawioralna jako nowy nurt ekonomii – zarys problematyki, “Wydział Zarządzania UW Studia i Materiały”, No. 1/2015 (18), pp. 7– 22. Zielonka P. (2003), Czym są finanse behawioralne, czyli krótkie wprowadzenie do psychologii rynków finansowych, Materiały i Studia NBP, 158. Zygan M. (2013), Ekonomia behawioralna – wprowadzenie do problematyki, “Studia i prace Wy� działu Nauk Ekonomicznych i Zarządzania”, No. 32, pp. 10–22.

130