Gender Differences in Stereotypes of Risk Preferences: Experimental Evidence from a Matrilineal and a Patrilineal Society

References

• Akerlof GA, Kranton RE (2000) Economics and identity. Quart. J. Econom. 115(3):715–753.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alcantara AN (1994) Gender roles, fertility, and the status of married Filipino men and women. Philippine Sociol. Rev. 42(1/4):94–109.Google Scholar
• Andersen S, Ertak S, Gneezy U, List JA, Maximiano S (2013) Gender, competitiveness, and socialization at a young age: Evidence from a matrilineal and a patriarchal society. Rev. Econom. Statist. 95(4):1438–1443.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ball S, Eckel CC, Heracleous M (2010) Risk aversion and physical prowess: Prediction, choice and bias. J. Risk Uncertainty 41(3):167–193.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bertrand M (2011) New perspectives on gender. Ashenfelter O, Card D, eds. Handbook of Labor Economics, Vol. 4(B) (North-Holland, Amsterdam), 1543–1590.Google Scholar
• Binswanger HP (1980) Attitudes toward risk: Experimental measurement in rural India. Amer. J. Agricultural Econom. 62(3):395–407.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Booth AL, Nolen P (2012) Gender differences in risk behaviour: Does nurture matter? Econom. J. 122(558):56–78.Google Scholar
• Brewer MB (1999) The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate? J. Soc. Issues 55(3):429–444.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carr PB, Steele CM (2010) Stereotype threat affects financial decision making. Psych. Sci. 21(10):1411–1416.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, Gneezy U, Imas A (2013) Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 87(March):43–51.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cochrane G (1970) Big Men and Cargo Cults (Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Correll SJ (2001) Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self-assessments. Amer. J. Sociol. 106(6):1691–1730.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Crocker J, Major B (1989) Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psych. Rev. 96(4):608–630.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Crocker J, Major B, Steele C (1998) Social stigma. Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindsey G, eds. Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2, 4th ed. (McGraw-Hill, New York), 504–553.Google Scholar
• Croson R, Gneezy U (2009) Gender differences in preferences. J. Econom. Literature 47(2):448–474.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Daruvala D (2007) Gender, risk and stereotypes. J. Risk Uncertainty 35(3):265–283.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dave C, Eckel CC, Johnson CA, Rojas C (2010) Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better? J. Risk Uncertainty 41(3):219–243.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eagly AH, Chaiken S (1998) Attitude structure and function. Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindsey G, eds. Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 1, 4th ed. (McGraw-Hill, New York), 269–322.Google Scholar
• Eckel CC, Grossman PJ (2002) Sex differences and statistical stereotyping in attitudes toward financial risk. Evolution Human Behav. 23(4):281–295.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckel CC, Grossman PJ (2008a) Differences in the economic decisions of men and women: Experimental evidence. Plott CR, Smith VL, eds. Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Vol. 1 (North-Holland, Amsterdam), 509–519.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
• Filippin A, Crosetto P (2016) A reconsideration of gender differences in risk attitudes. Management Sci. 62(11):3138–3160.Link, Google Scholar
• Fiske ST (2000) Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination at the seam between the centuries: Evolution, culture, mind, and brain. Eur. J. Soc. Psych. 30(3):299–322.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
• Goldin C (1995) The U-shaped female labor force function in economic development and economic history. Schultz TP, ed. Investment in Women’s Human Capital and Economic Development (University of Chicago Press, Chicago), 61–90.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
• Grossman PJ (2013) Holding fast: The persistence and dominance of gender stereotypes. Econom. Inquiry 51(1):747–763.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grossman PJ, Lugovskyy O (2011) An experimental test of the persistence of gender-based stereotypes. Econom. Inquiry 49(2):598–611.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hartmann H (1976) Capitalism, patriarchy, and job segregation by sex. Signs 1(3):137–169.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heilman ME (2001) Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. J. Soc. Issues 57(4):657–674.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henrich J, McElreath R (2002) Are peasants risk-averse decision makers? Current Anthropology 43(1):172–181.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A (2010) The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sci. 33(2–3):61–83.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henrich J, Boyd R, McElreath R, Gurven M, Richerson PJ, Ensminger J, Alvard Met al. (2012) Culture does account for variation in game behavior. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109(2):E32–E33.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hilton J, von Hippel W (1996) Stereotypes. Annual Rev. Psych. 47(1):237–271.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holt CA, Laury SK (2002) Risk aversion and incentive effects. Amer. Econom. Rev. 92(5):1644–1655.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson JE, Powell PL (1994) Decision making, risk and gender: Are managers different? British J. Management 5(2):123–138.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jones EE, Farina A, Hastorf AH, Markus H, Miller DT, Scott RA (1984) Social Stigma: The Psychology of Marked Relationships (Freeman, New York).Google Scholar
• Limsa M (2014) Personal email communication with Mercedes Limsa, director of the indigenous NGO Natripal in Palawan, May 8.Google Scholar
• Morduch J (1999) The microfinance promise. J. Econom. Literature 37(4):1569–1614.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nelson JA (2015) 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
• Petty RE, Wegener DT (1998) Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindsey G, eds. Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 1, 4th ed. (McGraw-Hill, New York), 323–390.Google Scholar
• Regan AJ, Griffin HM (2005) Bougainville: Before the Conflict (Pandanus Books, Canberra, Australia).Google Scholar
• Reuben E, Sapienza P, Zingales L (2014) How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111(12):4403–4408.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rieger MO, Wang M, Hens T (2014) Risk preferences around the world. Management Sci. 61(3):637–648.Link, Google Scholar
• Rosenberg M (1979) Conceiving the Self (Basic Books, New York).Google Scholar
• Roth B, Voskort A (2014) Stereotypes and false consensus: How financial professionals predict risk preferences. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 107(Part B, November):553–565.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Saovana-Spriggs R (2003) Bougainville women’s role in conflict resolution in the Bougainville peace process. Dinnen S, Jowitt A, Newton Cain T, eds. A Kind of Mending: Restorative Justice in the Pacific Islands (Pandanus Books, Canberra, Australia),195–213.Google Scholar
• Steele CM (1997) A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. Amer. Psychologist 52(6):613–629.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang P (1994) Brokers still treat men better than women. Money 23(6):108–110.Google Scholar
• Weber EU, Hsee C (1998) Cross-cultural differences in risk perception, but cross-cultural similarities in attitudes towards perceived risk. Management Sci. 44(9):1205–1217.Link, Google Scholar