Investor Reaction to the Ambiguity and Mix of Positive and Negative Argumentation in Favorable Analyst Reports
通过实验检验了有利分析师报告中论证的模糊性和正反论证混合如何影响投资者的反应，发现当正面论证明确时，投资者更偏好纯正面论证；当正面论证模糊时，混合论证反而提升可信度和投资意愿。
Abstract This study experimentally tests the hypothesis that investor reaction to favorable investment ratings is influenced by attributes of analysts’ supporting arguments. Specifically, I argue that argument ambiguity and the mix of positive and negative argumentation interact to influence how investors process and, in turn, react to information contained in analysts’ arguments. When positive arguments are unambiguous, I predict and find that investors react to the content of the arguments because they perceive the arguments provide sufficient support for the rating. In this case, investors react more favorably when the report includes strictly positive argumentation (i.e., one‐sided argumentation) than when it includes a mix of positive and negative argumentation (i.e., two‐sided argumentation). In contrast, when positive arguments are ambiguous, two‐sided argumentation acts as a credibility cue and leads to a higher likelihood of investment than one‐sided argumentation. These results provide important insights about the conditions under which investors react to justifications in favorable analyst reports and shed light on how analysts can credibly convey favorable information.