Advertisement

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp 55–71 | Cite as

Gender differences in reward sensitivity and information processing during decision-making

  • Kaileigh A. Byrne
  • Darrell A. Worthy
Article

Abstract

Gender differences in reward sensitivity and information processing were examined in two studies using a dynamic decision-making task. In Experiment 1, the optimal strategy involved forgoing an option that provided larger immediate rewards in favor of one yielding larger delayed rewards. In Experiment 2, the optimal strategy was to select the option that provided larger immediate rewards because the delayed reward option never gave larger rewards than the immediate reward option. Foregone reward information was either presented or withheld. In Experiment 1, information regarding foregone rewards biased participants toward the sub-optimal choice, whereas in Experiment 2, foregone rewards directed participants toward the optimal option. Males selected the optimal choice more in the delayed rewards task, while females were more biased toward the poorer choice by foregone reward information. In contrast, females outperformed males in the immediate rewards task. The results suggest a gender difference in information processing styles during decision-making.

Keywords

Decision-making Information processing Risk Reward Gender 

JEL Classifications

D830 D800 

References

  1. Andreano, J. M., & Cahill, L. (2009). Sex influences on the neurobiology of learning and memory. Learning & Memory, 16(4), 248–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bajtelsmit, V. L., & Bernasek, A. (1996). Why do women invest differently than men? Financial Counseling and Planning, 7, 1–10.Google Scholar
  3. Barber, B. M., & Odean, T. (2001). Boys will be boys: gender, overconfidence, and common stock investments. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 261–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolla, K. I., Eldreth, D. A., Matochik, J. A., & Cadet, J. L. (2004). Sex-related differences in a gambling task and its neurological correlates. Cerebral Cortex, 14(11), 1226–1232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brinig, M. F. (1995). Does mediation systematically disadvantage women? William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law, 2, 1–34.Google Scholar
  6. Byrne, K. A., & Worthy, D. A. (2013). Do narcissists make better decisions? An investigation of narcissism and dynamic decision-making performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 112–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cahill, L. (2006). Why sex matters for neuroscience. Nature Neuroscience Reviews, 7, 477–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47, 448–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cubitt, R. P., & Sugden, R. (2001). Dynamic decision-making under uncertainty: an experimental investigation of choices between accumulator gambles. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 22, 103–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deakin, J., Aitken, M., Robbins, T., & Sahakian, B. J. (2004). Risk taking during decision-making in normal volunteers changes with age. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 10, 590–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dwyer, P. D., Gilkeson, J. H., & List, J. A. (2002). Gender differences in revealed risk taking: evidence from mutual fund investors. Economics Letters, 76(2), 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2008). Forecasting risk attitudes: an experimental study using actual and forecast gamble choices. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gaechter, S., Johnson, E. J., & Hermann, A. (2007). Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices. CeDEx Discussion Paper 2007-02. University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
  14. Gureckis, T. M., & Love, B. C. (2009). Learning in noise: dynamic decision-making in a variable environment. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53, 180–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jianakoplos, N. A., & Bernasek, A. (1998). Are women more risk averse? Economic Inquiry, 36, 620–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kirby, K. N., & Marakovic, N. N. (1996). Delay-discounting probabilistic rewards: rates decrease as amounts increase. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(1), 100–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Levin, I. P., Snyder, M. A., & Chapman, D. P. (1988). The interaction of experiential and situational factors and gender in a simulated risky decision-making task. Journal of Psychology, 122, 173–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Logue, A. W., & Anderson, Y. D. (2001). Higher education administrators: when the future does not make a difference. Psychological Science, 12, 276–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meyers-Levy, J. (1989). Gender differences in information processing: a selectivity interpretation. In P. Cafferata & A. Tybout (Eds.), Cognitive and affective responses to advertising (pp. 219–260). MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  20. Powell, M., & Ansic, D. (1997). Gender differences in risk behaviour in financial decision-making: an experimental analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18(6), 605–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Reavis, R., & Overman, W. H. (2001). Adult sex differences on a decision-making task previously shown to depend on the orbital prefrontal cortex. Behavioral Neuroscience, 115(1), 196–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Reynolds, B., Ortengren, A., Richards, J. B., & De Wit, H. (2006). Dimensions of impulsive behavior: personality and behavioral measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 305–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schoemaker, P. H. (1998). Determinants of risk-taking: behavior and economic views. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 6, 49–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Silverman, I. W. (2003). Gender differences in delay of gratification: a meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 49, 451–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1983). Preference reversals: a broader perspective. American Economic Review, 73, 590–605.Google Scholar
  26. van den Bos, R., de Visser, L., Van de Loo, A. J. A. E., Mets, M. A. J., Van Willigenburg, G. M., & Homberg, J. R. (2012). Sex differences in decision-making in adult normal volunteers are related to differences in the interaction of emotion and cognitive control. In K. O. Moore & N. P. Gonzalez (Eds.), Handbook on psychology of decision-making: new research (pp. 179–198). Hauppage: Nova Science Publisher Inc.Google Scholar
  27. van den Bos, R., Homberg, J., & de Visser, L. (2013). A critical review of sex differences in decision-making tasks: focus on the Iowa gambling task. Behavioural Brain Research, 238(1), 95–108.Google Scholar
  28. Wehrung, D. A., Kam-Hon, L., Tse, D. K., & Vertinsky, I. B. (1989). Adjusting risky situations: a theoretical framework and empirical test. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2, 189–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Weller, J. A., Levin, I. P., & Bechara, A. (2010). Do individual differences in Iowa gambling task performance predict adaptive decision making for risky gains and losses? Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 32(2), 141–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Williams, C. L., & Meck, W. H. (1991). The organizational effects of gonadal steroids on sexually dimorphic spatial ability. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 16, 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wong, A., & Carducci, B. J. (1991). Sensation seeking and financial risk taking in everyday money matters. Journal of Business and Psychology, 5(4), 525–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Worthy, D. A., Gorlick, M. A., Pacheco, J. L., Schnyer, D. M., & Maddox, W. T. (2011). With age comes wisdom: decision-making in younger and older adults. Psychological Science, 22, 1375–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Worthy, D. A., Otto, A. R., & Maddox, W. T. (2012). Working-memory load and temporal myopia in dynamic decision-making. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(6), 1640–1658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations