Advertisement

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 167–193 | Cite as

Risk aversion and physical prowess: Prediction, choice and bias

  • Sheryl Ball
  • Catherine C. Eckel
  • Maria Heracleous
Article

Abstract

This paper reports on experiments where individuals are asked to make risky decisions for themselves, and to predict the risky decisions of others. Prior research shows that people predict women to be more risk averse than men, a result we confirm. We investigate whether differences in physical prowess underlie actual and perceived gender differences, a hypothesis suggested by both evolutionary and economic theories. Overall we find that perceptions of others’ risk attitudes reflect stereotypes about gender and strength but tend to exaggerate the underlying relationships. Physically stronger and taller people and those perceived as attractive are predicted to be more risk tolerant, while women are perceived to be more risk averse. The impact of gender and physical prowess measures on actual gamble choices is much weaker. Sources of prediction bias are examined, showing that specific characteristics of the target and predictor lead to systematic over-prediction or under-prediction of risk aversion.

Keywords

Risk aversion Physical risk Experiment Gender Stereotyping 

JEL classification

C91 D8 J16 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation (SES-0094800). We thank the staff of the Lab for the Study of Human Thought and Action at Virginia Tech for research assistance. We benefitted greatly from conversations with biologist John Phillips. Comments from Iris Bohnet, the participants at the Workshop on Gender and Negotiation, Women and Public Policy Program, Kennedy School of Government, and the seminar participants at the European University Institute significantly improved the paper.

References

  1. Akaike, H. (1973). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In B. Petrov & F. Csaki (Eds.), Second International Symposium on information theory. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.Google Scholar
  2. Barsky, R. B., Juster, T., Kimball, M. S., & Shapiro, M. D. (1997). Preference parameters and behavioral heterogeneity: an experimental approach in the Health and Retirement Study. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 537–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker, G., DeGroot, M. H., & Marschak, J. (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science, 9, 226–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Binswanger, H. P. (1981). Attitudes toward risk: theoretical implications of an experiment in rural India. Economic Journal, 91(364), 876–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (3rd ed.). Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
  6. Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 448–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Daruvala, D. (2007). Gender, risk and stereotypes. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 35, 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dave, C., Eckel, C., Johnson, C., & Rojas, C. (2010). Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 41(3), 219–243.Google Scholar
  9. Dekel, E., & Scotchmer, S. (1999). On the evolution of attitudes towards risk in winner-take-all games. Journal of Economic Theory, 87(1), 125–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Demaree, H. A., DeDonno, M. A., Burns, K. J., & Everhart, D. E. (2008). You bet: how personality differences affect risk-taking preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1484–1494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eckel, C. C. (2008a). The gender gap: using the lab as a window on the market. In F. Bettio & A. Verashchagina (Eds.), Frontiers in the economics of gender. Routledge Siena Studies in Political Economy.Google Scholar
  12. Eckel, C. C. (2008b). Gender differences (experimental evidence). In N. Durlauf & L. E. Blume (Eds.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics Online. Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230226203.0621
  13. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2002). Sex differences and statistical stereotyping in attitudes toward financial risk. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(4), 281–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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, 69(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2008b). Men, women and risk aversion: experimental evidence. In C. Plott & V. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics results (Vol. 1). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  16. Eeckhoudt, L., & Kimball, M. (1992). Background risk, prudence and the demand for insurance. In G. Dionne (Ed.), Contributions to insurance economics. London: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  17. Eeckhoudt, L., Gollier, C., & Schlesinger, H. (1996). Changes in background risk and risk taking behavior. Econometrica, 3(64), 683–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grable, J., & Lytton, R. H. (1999). Financial risk tolerance revisited: the development of a risk assessment instrument. Financial Services Review, 8, 163–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Halek, M., & Eisenhauer, J. G. (2001). Demography of risk aversion. The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 68(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hersch, J. (1996). Smoking, seat belts, and other risky consumer decisions: differences by gender and race. Managerial and Decision Economics, 17(5), 471–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jianakoplos, N. A., & Bernasek, A. (1998). Are women more risk averse? Economic Inquiry, 36(4), 620–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones-Lee, M. W. (1980). Maximum acceptable physical risk and a new measure of financial risk-aversion. The Economic Journal, 90, 550–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Langlois, J. H., Klakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoo, M. T. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analysis and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(3), 390–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mathiowetz, V., Kashman, N., Volland, G., Weber, K., Dowe, M., & Rogers, S. (1985). Grip and pinch strength: normative data for adults. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 66, 69–72.Google Scholar
  25. Martel, L. F., & Biller, H. B. (1987). Stature and stigma. Lexington: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  26. Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19, 2–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Persico, N., Postlewaite, A., & Silverman, D. (2004). The effect of adolescent experience on labor market outcomes: the case of height. Journal of Political Economy, 112(5), 1019–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pratt, J. W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1987). Proper risk aversion. Econometrica, 1(55), 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Queendom: The Land of Tests, a subsidiary of PsychTests AIM Inc. http://www.queendom.com/tests/minitests/type_a_teens_access.html. Viewed October 15, 2007.
  30. Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection, in social research. In P. V. Mardsen (Ed.), Sociological methodology (Vol. 25). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  31. Rhodes, G., Proffitt, F., Grady, J. M., & Sumich, A. (1998). Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(4), 659–669.Google Scholar
  32. Riley, W. B., Jr., & Chow, K. V. (1992). Asset allocation and individual risk aversion. Financial Analysts Journal, 32–37.Google Scholar
  33. Robson, A. J. (2001). The biological basis of economic behavior. Journal of Economic Literature, 39, 11–33.Google Scholar
  34. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The false consensus effect: an egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rubin, P. H., & Paul, C. W. (1979). An evolutionary model of taste for risk (pp. 585–596). XVII: Economic Inquiry.Google Scholar
  37. Saha, S., Stettin, G. D., & Redberg, R. F. (1999). Gender and willingness to undergo invasive cardiac procedures. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 14, 122–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sayer, A. A., Syddall, H. E., Martin, H. J., Dennison, E. M., Roberts, H. C., & Cooper, C. (2006). Is grip strength associated with health-related quality of life? Findings from the Hertfordshire cohort study, age and ageing advance access. Age and Ageing, 35, 409–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schulman, K. A., Berlin, J. A., Harless, W., Kerner, J. F., Sistrunk, S., Gersh, B. J., et al. (1999). The effects of race and sex on physicians’ recommendations for cardiac catheterization. The New England Journal of Medicine, 340, 618–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Seeman, M. (1991). Alienation and anomie. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (Vol. 1). San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  41. Smith, V. K., Evans, M. F., Kim, H., & Taylor, D. H., Jr. (2004). Do the “near” elderly value mortality risks differently? Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(1), 423–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Steckel, R. (1995). Stature and the standard of living. Journal of Economic Literature, 33, 1903–1940.Google Scholar
  43. Sunden, A. E., & Surette, B. J. (1998). Gender differences in the allocation of assets in retirement savings plans. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 88, 207–211.Google Scholar
  44. Wang, P. (1994). Brokers still treat men better than women. Money, 23, 108–110.Google Scholar
  45. Weber, E. U., Blais, A., & Betz, N. E. (2002). Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 263–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Webster, M., Jr., & Driskell, J. E., Jr. (1983). Beauty as status. American Journal of Sociology, 89, 140–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zebrowitz, L. A., & Rhodes, G. (2004). Sensitivity to bad genes and the anomalous face overgeneralization effect: cue validity, cue utilization, and accuracy in judging intelligence and health. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28(3), 167–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expression and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Zuckerman, M., & Kuhlman, M. (2000). Personality and risk-taking: common biosocial factors. Journal of Personality, 68, 999–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sheryl Ball
    • 1
  • Catherine C. Eckel
    • 2
  • Maria Heracleous
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.School of Economic, Political and Policy SciencesUniversity of Texas at DallasRichardsonUSA
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsUniversity of CyprusNicosiaCyprus

Personalised recommendations