ISSN: 3048-622X

The Dynamic Interplay of Behavioral Biases and Algorithmic Trading: An Agent-Based Modeling Approach to Market Efficiency

Abstract

This paper investigates the complex relationship between behavioral biases exhibited by human traders and the increasing prevalence of algorithmic trading systems in financial markets. Utilizing an agent-based modeling (ABM) framework, we simulate a market environment populated by both behavioral and algorithmic agents. Behavioral agents are endowed with cognitive biases, such as loss aversion, herding, and anchoring, while algorithmic agents are programmed with rational strategies and high-frequency trading capabilities. The simulation results demonstrate that the interaction between these two agent types significantly impacts market efficiency, volatility, and price discovery. Specifically, we find that algorithmic trading can exacerbate the effects of behavioral biases, leading to increased market instability, but also possesses the potential to mitigate these biases under certain market conditions. This research contributes to a deeper understanding of the evolving dynamics of financial markets in the age of algorithmic dominance and provides insights for policymakers and market participants seeking to enhance market stability and efficiency.

References

  1. 1. Barberis, N., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1998). A model of investor sentiment. Journal of Financial Economics, 49(3), 307-343
  2. 2. Brogaard, J. (2010). High-frequency trading and its impact on market quality. Review of Financial Studies, 23(4), 1456-1493
  3. 3. Daniel, K., Hirshleifer, D., & Subrahmanyam, A. (1998). Investor psychology and security market under-and overreactions. Journal of Finance, 53(6), 1839-1885
  4. 4. De Bondt, W. F., & Thaler, R. (1985). Does the stock market overreact?. Journal of Finance, 40(3), 793-805
  5. 5. Easwaran, R., Sayama, H., & Riolo, R. L. (2015). Modeling financial markets with heterogeneous agents: A review. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 18(3)
  6. 6. Hasbrouck, J. (2007). Empirical market microstructure: The institutions, economics, and econometrics of securities trading. Oxford University Press
  7. 7. Johnson, S. G., Zhao, Y., Hunsader, E., Meng, T., Ravindar, N., Carrigan, P., & Chan, T. (2013). Predicting the stock market with Twitter sentiment. In Proceedings of the 7th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media
  8. 8. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291
  9. 9. Kirilenko, A., Kyle, A. S., Samadi, M., & Tuzun, T. (2017). The flash crash: High-frequency trading in an electronic market. Journal of Finance, 72(3), 967-1004
  10. 10. O'Hara, M. (1995). Market microstructure theory. Blackwell
  11. 11. Shiller, R. J. (1981). Do stock prices move too much to be justified by subsequent changes in dividends?. American Economic Review, 71(3), 421-436
  12. 12. Stoll, H. R. (2006). Electronic trading in stock markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(1), 153-174
  13. 13. Farmer, J. D., & Joshi, S. (2002). The price dynamics of common stocks. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 312(1-2), 344-356
  14. 14. Lux, T., & Marchesi, M. (1999). Scaling and criticality in a stochastic multi-agent model of financial markets. Nature, 399(6735), 498-500
  15. 15. Madhavan, A. (2000). Market microstructure: A survey. Journal of Financial Markets, 3*(3), 205-258
Download PDF

How to Cite

Narendra Kumar, (2025-04-28 19:50:08.789). The Dynamic Interplay of Behavioral Biases and Algorithmic Trading: An Agent-Based Modeling Approach to Market Efficiency. JANOLI International Journal of Economics and Management Science , Volume MejgkunYNoDF1a6qqjpe, Issue 1.