Abstract
Women are commonly stereotyped as more risk averse than men in financial decision making. In this paper we examine whether this stereotype reflects gender differences in actual risk-taking behavior by means of a laboratory experiment with monetary incentives. Gender differences in risk taking may be due to differences in valuations of outcomes or in probability weights. The results of our experiment indicate that value functions do not differ significantly between men and women. Men and women differ in their probability weighting schemes, however. In general, women tend to be less sensitive to probability changes. They also tend to underestimate large probabilities of gains more strongly than do men. This effect is particularly pronounced when the decisions are framed in investment terms. As a result, women appear to be more risk averse than men in specific circumstances.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
J.P. Byrnes D.C. Miller W.D. Schafer (1999) ArticleTitleGender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis Psychological Bulletin 125 367–383 Occurrence Handle10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.367
C.C. Eckel P.J. Grossman (2002) ArticleTitleSex differences and statistical stereotyping in attitudes toward financial risk Evolution and Human Behavior 23 281–295 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00097-1
C.C. Eckel P.J. Grossman (2005) The difference in the economic decisions of men and women: Experimental evidence C. Plott V.L. Smith (Eds) Handbook of Experimental Economics Results NumberInSeriesVol. 1 North-Holland Amsterdam
B. Efron (1979) ArticleTitleBootstrap methods: Another look at the Jackknife Annals of Statistics 7 1–26
Fischbacher, U. (1999). Z-Tree. Zurich Toolbox for Readymade Economic Experiments. Institute of Empirical Economic Research, University of Zurich, Working Paper No. 21.
R. Gonzalez G. Wu (1999) ArticleTitleOn the shape of the probability weighting function Cognitive Psychology 38 129–166 Occurrence Handle10.1006/cogp.1998.0710
Gysler, M., Brown Kruse, J. and Schubert, R. (2002). Ambiguity and gender differences in financial decision making: An experimental examination of competence and confidence effects. Center for Economic Research, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Working Paper.
W.T. Harbaugh K. Krause L. Vesterlund (2002) ArticleTitleRisk attitudes of children and adults: Choices over small and large probability gains and losses Experimental Economics 5 53–84 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1016316725855
P.K. Lattimore J.K. Baker A.D. Witte (1992) ArticleTitleThe influence of probability on risky choice: A parametric examination Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 17 377–400 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0167-2681(95)90015-2
Moore, E. and Eckel, C. (2003). Measuring Ambiguity Aversion, mimeo.
J. Quiggin (1982) ArticleTitleA theory of anticipated utility Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3 323–343 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0167-2681(82)90008-7
Schubert, R., Gysler, M., Brown, M. and Brachinger, H. W. (2000). Gender-specific attitudes towards risk and ambiguity: An experimental investigation. Center for Economic Research, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Working Paper.
S. Siegel N.J. Castellan SuffixJr. (1988) Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences McGraw-Hill New York
A. Tversky D. Kahneman (1992) ArticleTitleAdvances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5 297–323 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF00122574
H. Walther (2003) ArticleTitleNormal-randomness expected utility, time preferences and emotional distortions Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 52 253–266 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0167-2681(03)00005-2
Wu G. and Markle A. B. (2004). An Empirical Test of Gain–Loss Separability in Prospect Theory, mimeo.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fehr-Duda, H., de Gennaro, M. & Schubert, R. Gender, Financial Risk, and Probability Weights. Theor Decis 60, 283–313 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-005-4590-0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-005-4590-0