A Reconsideration of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes

References

• Abdellaoui M, Driouchi A, L’Haridon O (2011) Risk aversion elicitation: Reconciling tractability and bias minimization. Theory Decision 71(1):63–80.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Agnew JR, Anderson LR, Gerlach JR, Szykman LR (2008) Who chooses annuities? An experimental investigation of the role of gender, framing, and defaults. Amer. Econom. Rev. 98(2):418–422.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson L, Freeborn B (2010) Varying the intensity of competition in a multiple prize rent seeking experiment. Public Choice 143(1):237–254.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andersen S, Harrison GW, Lau MI, Rutström E (2006) Elicitation using multiple price list formats. Experiment. Econom. 9(4):383–405.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andersen S, Harrison GW, Lau MI, Rutström EE (2008) Eliciting risk and time preferences. Econometrica 76(3):583–618.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andersen S, Harrison GW, Lau MI, Rutström EE (2010) Preference heterogeneity in experiments: Comparing the field and laboratory. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 73(2):209–224.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andersson O, Holm HJ, Tyran J-R, Wengström E (2016) Risk aversion relates to cognitive ability: Preferences or noise? J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 14(5):1129–1154Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J, Sprenger C (2012) Risk preferences are not time preferences. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(7):3357–3376.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arya S, Eckel C, Wichman C (2013) Anatomy of the credit score. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 95(November):175–185.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baker RJ, Laury SK, Williams AW (2008) Comparing small-group and individual behavior in lottery-choice experiments. Southern Econom. J. 75(2):367–382.Google Scholar
• Ball S, Eckel C, Heracleous M (2010) Risk aversion and physical prowess: Prediction, choice and bias. J. Risk Uncertainty 41(3):167–193.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barrera D, Simpson B (2012) Much ado about deception: Consequences of deceiving research participants in the social sciences. Sociol. Methods Res. 41(3):383–413.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bauernschuster S, Duersch P, Oechssler J, Vadovic R (2010) Mandatory sick pay provision: A labor market experiment. J. Public Econom. 94(11–12):870–877.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bellemare C, Shearer B (2010) Sorting, incentives and risk preferences: Evidence from a field experiment. Econom. Lett. 108(3):345–348.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bellemare C, Krause M, Kroger S, Zhang C (2005) Myopic loss aversion: Information feedback vs. investment flexibility. Econom. Lett. 87(3):319–324.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Binswanger HP (1981) Attitudes toward risk: Theoretical implications of an experiment in rural india. Econom. J. 91(364):867–890.Google Scholar
• Blavatskyy PR, Pogrebna G (2010) Models of stochastic choice and decision theories: Why both are important for analyzing decisions. J. Appl. Econometrics 25(6):963–986.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brañas-Garza P, Rustichini A (2011) Organizing effects of testosterone and economic behavior: Not just risk taking. PLoS ONE 6(12):e29842.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bruner D (2009) Changing the probability versus changing the reward. Experiment. Econom. 12(4):367–385.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Byrnes JP, Miller DC, Schafer WD (1999) Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psych. Bull. 125(3):367–383.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camerer CF (1992) Recent tests of generalizations of expected utility theory. Edwards W, ed. Utility Theories: Measurements and Applications, Studies in Risk and Uncertainty (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston), 207–251.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carlsson F, He H, Martinsson P, Qin P, Sutter M (2012) Household decision making in rural China: Using experiments to estimate the influences of spouses. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 84(2):525–536.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Casari M (2009) Pre-commitment and flexibility in a time decision experiment. J. Risk Uncertainty 38(2):117–141.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cason TN, Masters WA, Sheremeta RM (2010) Entry into winner-take-all and proportional-prize contests: An experimental study. J. Public Econom. 94(9–10):604–611.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chakravarty S, Harrison GW, Haruvy EE, Rutström EE (2011) Are you risk averse over other people’s money? Southern Econom. J. 77(4):901–913.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Genicot G (2009) Informal risk sharing in an infinite-horizon experiment. Econom. J. 119(537):796–825.Google Scholar
• Charness G, Gneezy U (2010) Portfolio choice and risk attitudes: An experiment. Econom. Inquiry 48(1):133–146.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Gneezy U (2012) Strong Evidence for Gender Differences in risk taking. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 83(1):50–58.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Viceisza A (2016) Comprehension and risk elicitation in the field: Evidence from rural Senegal. Rev. Behav. Econom. Forthcoming.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Katuščák P, Ozdenoren E (2013) Why can’t a woman bid more like a man? Games Econom. Behav. 77(1):181–213.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cleave BL, Nikiforakis N, Slonim R (2013) Is there selection bias in laboratory experiments? Experiment. Econom. 16(3):372–382.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cobo-Reyes R, Jimenez N (2012) The dark side of friendship: “Envy”. Experiment. Econom. 15(4):547–570.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen J (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ).Google Scholar
• Cohen M, Jaffray JY, Said T (1987) Experimental comparison of individual behavior under risk and under uncertainty for gains and for losses. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 39(1):1–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Crosetto P, Filippin A (2013) The “bomb” risk elicitation task. J. Risk Uncertainty 47(1):31–65.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Crosetto P, Filippin A (2016) A theoretical and experimental appraisal of four risk elicitation methods. Experment. Econom. 19(3):613–641.Google Scholar
• Crosetto P, Filippin A, Heider J (2015) A study of outcome reporting bias using gender differences in risk attitudes. CESifo Econom. Stud. 61(1):239–262.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Croson R, Gneezy U (2009) Gender differences in preferences. J. Econom. Literature 47(2):448–474.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dave C, Eckel C, Johnson C, Rojas C (2010) Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better? J. Risk Uncertainty 41(3):219–243.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Deck C, Lee J, Reyes J (2010) Personality and the consistency of risk taking behavior: Experimental evidence. Working Paper 10-17, Economic Science Institute, Chapman University, Orange, CA.Google Scholar
• Deck C, Lee J, Reyes J, Rosen C (2012) Risk-taking behavior: An experimental analysis of individuals and dyads. Southern Econom. J. 79(2):277–299.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Delnoij J, De Jaegher K, Rosenkranz S (2014) Understanding preferences for ascending auctions, Buy-It-Now auctions and fixed prices. Discussion Paper Series 14-02, Tjalling C. Koopmans Research Institute, Utrecht University School of Economics, Utrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
• Dickinson DL (2009) The effects of beliefs versus risk attitude on bargaining outcomes. Theory Decision 66(1):69–101.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dohmen T, Falk A (2011) Performance pay and multidimensional sorting: Productivity, preferences, and gender. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(2):556–590.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dohmen T, Falk A, Huffman D, Sunde U (2010) Are risk aversion and impatience related to cognitive ability? Amer. Econom. Rev. 100(3):1238–1260.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dohmen T, Falk A, Huffman D, Sunde U, Schupp J, Wagner GG (2011) Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 9(3):522–550.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dreber A, Rand DG, Wernerfelt N, Garcia JR, Lum JK, Zeckhauser R (2011) Dopamine and risk choices in different domains: Findings among serious tournament bridge players. J. Risk Uncertainty 43(1):19–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Drichoutis AC, Koundouri P (2012) Estimating risk attitudes in conventional and artefactual lab experiments: The importance of the underlying assumptions. Econom.—The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-J. 6(38):1–15.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Duersch P, Oechssler J, Vadovic R (2012) Sick pay provision in experimental labor markets. Eur. Econom. Rev. 56(1):1–19.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckel CC, Grossman PJ (2002) Sex differences and statistical stereotyping in attitudes toward financial risk. Evolution and Human Behav. 23(4):281–295.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckel CC, Grossman PJ (2008a) Men, women and risk aversion: Experimental evidence. Plott CR, Smith VL, eds. Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Vol. 1 (Elservier B.V., Amsterdam), 1061–1073.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckel CC, Grossman PJ (2008b) Forecasting risk attitudes: An experimental study using actual and forecast gamble choices. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 68(1):1–17.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckel CC, Wilson RK (2004) Is trust a risky decision? J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 55(4):447–465.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckel CC, Wilson RK (2006) Internet cautions: Experimental games with Internet partners. Experiment. Econom. 9(1):53–66.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckel CC, El-Gamal MA, Wilson RK (2009) Risk loving after the storm: A Bayesian-Network study of Hurricane Katrina evacuees. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 69(2):110–124.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ehmke M, Lusk J, Tyner W (2010) Multidimensional tests for economic behavior differences across cultures. J. Socio-Econom. 39(1):37–45.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eriksen KW, Kvaløy O, Olsen TE (2011) Tournaments with prize-setting agents. Scandinavian J. Econom. 113(3):729–753.Google Scholar
• Ertac S, Gurdal MY (2012) Deciding to decide: Gender, leadership and risk-taking in groups. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 83(1):24–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Falk A, Huffman D, Sunde U (2006) Self-confidence and search. Discussion paper, Institute for the Study of Labor, Bonn, Germany.Google Scholar
• Fellner G, Sutter M (2009) Causes, consequences, and cures of myopic loss aversion—An experimental investigation. Econom. J. 119(537):900–916.Google Scholar
• Fiedler S, Glöckner A (2012) The dynamics of decision making in risky choice: An eye-tracking analysis. Frontiers in Psych. 3(335), doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00335.Google Scholar
• Fiore SM, Harrison GW, Hughes CE, Rutström EE (2009) Virtual experiments and environmental policy. J. Environ. Econom. Management 57(1):65–86.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Glöckner A, Hilbig B (2012) Risk is relative: Risk aversion yields cooperation rather than defection in cooperation-friendly environments. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 19(3):546–553.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Glöckner A, Pachur T (2012) Cognitive models of risky choice: Parameter stability and predictive accuracy of prospect theory. Cognition 123(1):21–32.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Potters J (1997) An experiment on risk taking and evaluation periods. Quart. J. Econom. 112(2):631–645.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Leonard KL, List JA (2009) Gender differences in competition: Evidence from a matrilineal and a patriarchal society. Econometrica 77(5):1637–1664.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gong B, Yang CL (2012) Gender differences in risk attitudes: Field experiments on the matrilineal Mosuo and the patriarchal Yi. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 83(1):59–65.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grijalva T, Berrens RP, Shaw WD (2011) Species preservation versus development: An experimental investigation under uncertainty. Ecological Econom. 70(5):995–1005.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grossman PJ, Eckel CC (2015) Loving the longshot: Risk taking with skewed gambles. J. Risk Uncertainty 51(3):195–217.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haigh MS, List JA (2005) Do professional traders exhibit myopic loss aversion? An experimental analysis. J. Finance 60(1):523–534.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harless DW, Camerer CF (1994) The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories. Econometrica 62(6):1251–1289.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison GW, Rutström EE (2008) Risk aversion in the laboratory. Cox JC, Harrison GW, eds. Risk Aversion in Experiments, Research in Experimental Economics, Vol. 12 (Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, UK), 41–196.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison GW, List JA, Towe C (2007) Naturally occurring preferences and exogenous laboratory experiments: A case study of risk aversion. Econometrica 75(2):433–458.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison GW, Johnson E, McInnes MM, Rutström EE (2005) Risk aversion and incentive effects: Comment. Amer. Econom. Rev. 95(3):897–901.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison GW, Lau MI, Rutström EE, Tarazona-Gómez M (2013) Preferences over social risk. Oxford Econom. Papers 65(1):25–46.Crossref, Google Scholar
• He H, Martinsson P, Sutter M (2011) Group decision making under risk: An experiment with student couples. Working Paper 2011-27, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.Google Scholar
• Hey JD, Orme C (1994) Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica 62(6):1291–1326.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holt CA, Laury SK (2002) Risk aversion and incentive effects. Amer. Econom. Rev. 92(5):1644–1655.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holt CA, Laury SK (2014) Assessment and estimation of risk preferences. Machina M, Viscusi K, eds. Handbook of the Economics of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 1 (North-Holland, Amsterdam), 135–201.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Houser D, Schunk D, Winter J (2010) Distinguishing trust from risk: An anatomy of the investment game. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 74(1–2):72–81.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jacquemet N, Rullière JL, Vialle I (2008) Monitoring optimistic agents. J. Econom. Psych. 29(5):698–714.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jamison J, Karlan D, Schechter L (2008) To deceive or not to deceive: The effect of deception on behavior in future laboratory experiments. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 68(3-4):477–488.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kocher MG, Pahlke J, Trautmann ST (2013a) Tempus fugit: Time pressure in risky decisions. Management Sci. 59(10):2380–2391.Link, Google Scholar
• Kocher MG, Pogrebna G, Sutter M (2013b) Other-regarding preferences and management styles. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 88:109–132.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Koszegi B, Rabin M (2007) Reference-dependent risk attitudes. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97(4):1047–1073.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lange A, List JA, Price MK (2007a) A fundraising mechanism inspired by historical tontines: Theory and experimental evidence. J. Public Econom. 91(9):1750–1782.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lange A, List JA, Price MK (2007b) Using lotteries to finance public goods: Theory and experimental evidence*. Internat. Econom. Rev. 48(3):901–927.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Langer T, Weber M (2004) Does binding or feedback influence myopic loss aversion? An experimental analysis. Mimeo.Google Scholar
• Lattimore PK, Baker JR, Witte AD (1992) The influence of probability on risky choice: A parametric examination. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 17(3):377–400.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Laury SK (2005) Pay one or pay all: Random selection of one choice for payment. Working paper, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, Atlanta.Google Scholar
• Levy-Garboua L, Maafi H, Masclet D, Terracol A (2012) Risk aversion and framing effects. Experiment. Econom. 15(1):128–144.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luce RD (1959) Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ).Google Scholar
• Lusk JL, Coble KH (2005) Risk perceptions, risk preference, and acceptance of risky food. Amer. J. Agricultural Econom. 87(2):393–405.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Masatlioglu Y, Taylor S, Uler N (2012) Behavioral mechanism design: Evidence from the modified first-price auctions. Rev. Econom. Design 16(2):159–173.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Masclet D, Colombier N, Denant-Boemont L, Lohéac Y (2009) Group and individual risk preferences: A lottery-choice experiment with self-employed and salaried workers. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 70(3):470–484.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Menon M, Perali F (2009) Eliciting risk and time preferences in field experiments: Are they related to cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes? Are circumstances important? Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali 117(3):593–630.Google Scholar
• Mueller J, Schwieren C (2012) Can personality explain what is underlying women’s unwillingness to compete? J. Econom. Psych. 33(3):448–460.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nelson JA (2015a) Are women really more risk-averse than men? A re-analysis of the literature using expanded methods. J. Econom. Surveys 29(3):566–585.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nelson JA (2015b) Not-so-strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking. Feminist Econom., ePub ahead of print July 20, doi: 10.1080/13545701.2015.1057609.Google Scholar
• Niederle M, Vesterlund L (2010) Explaining the gender gap in math test scores: The role of competition. J. Econom. Perspectives 24(2):129–144.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nieken P, Schmitz PW (2012) Repeated moral hazard and contracts with memory: A laboratory experiment. Games Econom. Behav. 75(2):1000–1008.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Niemeyer C, Reiss JP, Sadrieh A (2013) Reducing risk in experimental games and individual choice. Technical report, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany.Google Scholar
• Pogrebna G, Krantz D, Schade C, Keser C (2011) Words versus actions as a means to influence cooperation in social dilemma situations. Theory Decision 71(4):473–502.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ponti G, Carbone E (2009) Positional learning with noise. Res. Econom. 63(4):225–241.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Price CR, Sheremeta RM (2011) Endowment effects in contests. Econom. Lett. 111(3):217–219.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosaz J (2012) Biased information and effort. Econom. Inquiry 50(2):484–501.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosaz J, Villeval MC (2012) Lies and biased evaluation: A real-effort experiment. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 84(2):537–549.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ryvkin D (2011) Fatigue in dynamic tournaments. J. Econom. Management Strategy 20(4):1011–1041.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sapienza P, Zingales L, Maestripieri D (2009) Gender differences in financial risk aversion and career choices are affected by testosterone. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106(36):15268–15273.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schipper BC (2012) Sex hormones and choice under risk. Working Paper 2012-07, University of California at Davis, Davis.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schram A, Sonnemans J (2011) How individuals choose health insurance: An experimental analysis. Eur. Econom. Rev. 55(6):799–819.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schubert R, Brown M, Gysler M, Brachinger H (1999) Financial decision-making: Are women really more risk-averse? Amer. Econom. Rev. 89(2):381–385.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schunk D (2009) Behavioral heterogeneity in dynamic search situations: Theory and experimental evidence. J. Econom. Dynam. Control 33(9):1719–1738.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shafran AP (2010) Interdependent security experiments. Econom. Bull. 30(3):1950–1962.Google Scholar
• Sheremeta RM (2010) Experimental comparison of multi-stage and one-stage contests. Games Econom. Behav. 68(2):731–747.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slonim R, Guillen P (2010) Gender selection discrimination: Evidence from a trust game. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 76(2):385–405.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sloof R, van Praag CM (2010) The effect of noise in a performance measure on work motivation: A real effort laboratory experiment. Labour Econom. 17(5):751–765.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Starmer C (2000) Developments in non-expected utility theory: The hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. J. Econom. Literature 38(2):332–382.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stott H (2006) Cumulative prospect theory’s functional menagerie. J. Risk Uncertainty 32(2):101–130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sutter M, Kocher MG, Glätzle-Rüetzler D, Trautmann ST (2013) Impatience and uncertainty: Experimental decisions predict adolescents’ field behavior. Amer. Econom. Rev. 103(1):510–531.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Szrek H, Chao L-W, Ramlagan S, Peltzer K (2012) Predicting (un)healthy behavior: A comparison of risk-taking propensity measures. Judgment Decision Making 7(6):716–727.Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertainty 5(4):297–323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Viscusi W, Phillips O, Kroll S (2011) Risky investment decisions: How are individuals influenced by their groups? J. Risk Uncertainty 43(2):81–106.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wakolbinger F, Haigner SD (2009) Peer advice in a tax-evasion experiment. Econom. Bull. 29(3):1653–1669.Google Scholar
• Wieland A, Sarin R (2012) Gender differences in risk aversion: A theory of when and why. Working paper, UCLA Anderson School of Management, University of California,Los Angeles.Google Scholar
• Wik M, Kebede TA, Bergland O, Holden S (2004) On the measurement of risk aversion from experimental data. Appl. Econom. 36(21):2443–2451.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yechiam E, Hochman G (2013) Loss-aversion or loss-attention: The impact of losses on cognitive performance. Cognitive Psych. 66(2):212–231.Crossref, Google Scholar