The Contrarian Bias of Incentivizing Learning

Clicks: 6
ID: 317085
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Popular

Ranked #4 of 12 articles by views in The Review of Corporate Finance Studies

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract Delegating high-stakes decisions creates a fundamental tension: incentivizing experts to acquire unobservable information inevitably distorts their final choices. In a principal-agent setting, we characterize the optimal compensation contract under hidden learning, showing it endogenously generates either contrarian or conformist bias. The direction of this bias depends on learning costs and the precision of public and private information. Our framework links information acquisition incentives to systematic biases in experts’ choices and offers a unifying explanation for conflicting empirical evidence in financial advice: why analysts issue excessive contrarian recommendations, and why inexperienced analysts follow the consensus more than their experienced peers.
Reference Key
openalex_W7164302251 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Spyros Terovitis
Journal The Review of Corporate Finance Studies
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/rcfs/cfag016
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.