Advertisement

Room composition effects on risk taking by gender

  • Marco Castillo
  • Greg Leo
  • Ragan PetrieEmail author
Original Paper
  • 21 Downloads

Abstract

We present evidence of a direct social context effect on decision-making under uncertainty: the gender composition of those in the room when making individual risky decisions significantly alters choices even when the actions or presence of others are not payoff relevant. In our environment, decision makers do not know the choices made by others, nor can they be inferred from the experiment. We find that women become more risk taking as the proportion of men in the room increases, but the behavior of men is unaffected by who is present. We discuss some potential mechanisms for this result and conjecture it is driven by women being aware of the social context and imitating the expected behavior of others. Our results imply that the environment in which individual decisions are made can change expressed preferences and that aggregate behavior may be context dependent.

Keywords

Gender Decision context effects Risk aversion Experiment 

JEL Classification

C91 D81 J16 

Notes

Supplementary material

10683_2019_9635_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (307 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 306 KB)

References

  1. Ambrus, A., Greiner, B., & Pathak, P. A. (2015). How individual preferences are aggregated in groups: An experimental study. Journal of Public Economics, 129, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreoni, J., & Bernheim, B. D. (2009). Social image and the 50–50 norm: A theoretical and experimental analysis of audience effects. Econometrica, 77(5), 1607–1636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asch, S. E., & Guetzkow, H. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. Groups, Leadership, and Men, 84, 222–236.Google Scholar
  4. Baron-Cohen, S., Knickmeyer, R. C., & Belmonte, M. K. (2005). Sex differences in the brain: Implications for explaining autism. Science, 310(5749), 819–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertrand, M., Luttmer, E. F., & Mullainathan, S. (2000). Network effects and welfare cultures. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 1019–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bogan, V., Just, R. D., & Dev, C. S. (2013). Team gender diversity and investment decision-making behavior. Review of Behavioral Finance, 5(2), 134–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bohnet, I., & Frey, B. S. (1999). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games: Comment. American Economic Review, 89(1), 335–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Booth, A. L., Cardona-Sosa, L., & Nolen, P. (2014). Gender differences in risk aversion: Do single-sex environments affect their development? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 99, 126–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Booth, A. L., & Nolen, P. (2012). Gender differences in risk behaviour: Does nurture matter? The Economic Journal, 122(558), F56–F78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buser, T., Niederle, M., & Oosterbeek, H. (2014). Gender, competitiveness, and career choices. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(3), 1409–1447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Charness, G., & Gneezy, U. (2012). Strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking. Journal of Economic Behavior Organization, 83(1), 50–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Charness, G., Gneezy, U., & Imas, A. (2013). Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 87, 43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Charness, G., Rigotti, L., & Rustichini, A. (2007). Individual behavior and group membership. American Economic Review, 97(4), 1340–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Conley, T. G., & Udry, C. R. (2010). Learning about a new technology: Pineapple in Ghana. American Economic Review, 100(1), 35–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cooper, D. J., & Rege, M. (2011). Misery loves company: Social regret and social interaction effects in choices under risk and uncertainty. Games and Economic Behavior, 73(1), 91–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cooper, H. M. (1979). Statistically combining independent studies: A meta-analysis of sex differences in conformity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1), 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 448–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dohmen, T., & Falk, A. (2011). Performance pay and multidimensional sorting: Productivity, preferences, and gender. American Economic Review, 101(2), 556–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Duflo, E., & Saez, E. (2003). The role of information and social interactions in retirement plan decisions: Evidence from a randomized experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3), 815–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (1981). Sex of researchers and sex-typed communications as determinants of sex differences in influenceability: A meta-analysis of social influence studies. Psychological Bulletin, 90(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2001). Chivalry and solidarity in ultimatum games. Economic Inquiry, 39(2), 171–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2008a). Forecasting risk attitudes: An experimental study using actual and forecast gamble choices. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 68(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2008b). Men, women and risk aversion: Experimental evidence. Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, 1, 1061–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fisher, R. A. (1960). The design of experiments (7th ed.). Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
  26. Gneezy, U., Niederle, M., & Rustichini, A. (2003). Performance in competitive environments: Gender differences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3), 1049–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gneezy, U., & Potters, J. (1997). An experiment on risk taking and evaluation periods. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 631–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grossman, P. J. (2013). Holding fast: The persistence and dominance of gender stereotypes. Economic Inquiry, 51(1), 747–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grossman, P. J., & Lugovskyy, O. (2011). An experimental test of the persistence of gender-based stereotypes. Economic Inquiry, 49(2), 598–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heß, S. (2017). Randomization inference with Stata: A guide and software. The Stata Journal, 17(3), 630–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kocher, M. G., Pahlke, J., & Trautmann, S. T. (2013). Tempus fugit: Time pressure in risky decisions. Management Science, 59(10), 2380–2391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Levinger, G., & Schneider, D. J. (1969). Test of the “risk is a value” hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11(2), 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lindquist, G. S., & Säve-Söderbergh, J. (2011). “Girls will be girls”, especially among boys: Risk-taking in the “daily double” on Jeopardy. Economics Letters, 112(2), 158–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Manski, C. F. (1999). Identification problems in the social sciences. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Manski, C. F. (2000). Economic analysis of social interactions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McClure, E. B. (2000). A meta-analytic review of sex differences in facial expression processing and their development in infants, children, and adolescents. Psychological Bulletin, 126(3), 424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McGuire, W. J. (1984). Search for the self: Going beyond self-esteem and the reactive self. Personality and the Prediction of Behavior, 73, 120.Google Scholar
  38. Niederle, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2007). Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1067–1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rohde, I. M., & Rohde, K. I. (2011). Risk attitudes in a social context. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 43(3), 205–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Young, A. (2019). Channeling fisher: Randomization tests and the statistical insignificance of seemingly significant experimental results. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(2), 557–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zahn-Waxler, C., Shirtcliff, E. A., & Marceau, K. (2008). Disorders of childhood and adolescence: Gender and psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 275–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Science Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  2. 2.The Melbourne InstituteMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations