Advertisement

Theory and Decision

, Volume 82, Issue 2, pp 211–219 | Cite as

Gender differences in ambiguity aversion under different outcome correlation structures

  • Andreas Friedl
  • Patrick Ring
  • Ulrich Schmidt
Article

Abstract

This paper studies the impact of different outcome correlation structures on gender differences in ambiguity aversion. We conducted an investment game with two separate treatments. In the uncorrelated treatment, the outcomes of the investment game were determined individually. In the correlated treatment, the outcomes of the investment game were determined collectively within a reference group. From an evolutionary perspective, men should be more concerned about relative outcomes, because their reproductive success mainly depended on their relative standing within society. Women, by contrast, should be more concerned about absolute outcomes, because their reproductive success was mainly linked to their access to resources for themselves and their children. Therefore, we predict that the type of outcome correlation structure has a larger impact on men than on women. In particular, we hypothesize that men are less ambiguity averse under an uncorrelated outcome structure. In this situation, the ambiguous alternative should be more attractive, because it potentially reduces inequality and thereby improves men’s relative standing within society. Women’s choices should not be significantly affected by different outcome correlation structures. Both hypotheses are supported by evidence from laboratory experiments.

Keywords

Ambiguity aversion Gender differences Risk Outcome correlation Social comparison 

References

  1. Banerjee, D. (2014). Ethnicity and gender differences in risk, ambiguity attitude. Working Paper. http://purl.umn.edu/180978. Accessed May 2016.
  2. Bateman, A. (1948). Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity, 2, 349–368. doi: 10.1038/hdy.1948.21.
  3. Binmore, K., Stewart, L., & Voorhoeve, A. (2012). How much ambiguity aversion? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 45(3), 215–238. doi: 10.1007/s11166-012-9155-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Booij, A. S., & van de Kuilen, G. (2009). A parameter-free analysis of the utility of money for the general population under prospect theory. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(4), 651–666. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2009.05.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borghans, L., Heckman, J. J., Golsteyn, B. H. H., & Meijers, H. (2009). Gender differences in risk aversion and ambiguity aversion. Journal of the European Economic Association, 7(2–3), 649–658. doi: 10.1162/JEEA.2009.7.2-3.649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brunette, M., Cabantous, L., & Couture, S. (2010). Comparing group and individual choices under risk and ambiguity: an experimental study. Working Paper. ftp://ftp.repec.org/opt/ReDIF/RePEc/bbr/pdf/15.pdf. Accessed May 2016.
  7. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–14. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00023992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Camerer, C., & Weber, M. (1992). Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 325–370. doi: 10.1007/BF00122575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chark, R., & Chew, S. H. (2015). A neuroimaging study of preference for strategic uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 50(3), 209–227. doi: 10.1007/s11166-015-9220-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Charness, G., Karni, E., & Levin, D. J. (2013). Ambiguity attitudes and social interactions: An experimental investigation. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 46(1), 1–25. doi: 10.1007/s11166-012-9157-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collard, F., Mukerji, S., Sheppard, K., & Tallon, J.-M. (2011). Ambiguity and the historical equity premium. Working Paper. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract id=1836297. Accessed May 2016.
  12. Curley, S. P., Yates, J. F., & Abrams, R. A. (1986). Psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38(2), 230–256. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(86)90018-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (2001). Risk-taking, intrasexual competition, and homicide. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 47, 1–36.Google Scholar
  14. Dimmock, S. G., Kouwenberg, R., & Wakker, P. P. (2016). Ambiguity attitudes in a large representative sample. Management Science, 62(5), 1363–1380. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2015.2198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dow, J., & Werlang, S. R. D. C. (1992). Uncertainty aversion, risk aversion, and the optimal choice of portfolio. Econometrica, 60(1), 197–204. doi: 10.2307/2951685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Easley, D., & O’Hara, M. (2009). Ambiguity and nonparticipation: The role of regulation. Review of Financial Studies, 22(5), 1817–1843. doi: 10.1093/rfs/hhn100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75(4), 643–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ermer, E., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2008). Relative status regulates risky decision making about resources in men: Evidence for the co-evolution of motivation and cognition. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(2), 106–118. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fox, C. R., & Tversky, A. (1995). Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(3), 585–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Friedl, A., & Lima de Miranda, K., & Schmidt, U., (2013). Insurance demand and social comparison: An experimental analysis. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 48(2), 97–109. doi: 10.1007/s11166-014-9189-9.
  21. Heath, C., & Tversky, A. (1991). Preference and belief: Ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4(1), 5–28. doi: 10.1007/BF00057884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keck, S., Diecidue, E., & Budescu, D. V. (2014). Group decisions under ambiguity: Convergence to neutrality. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 103, 60–71. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2014.03.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keller, L. R., Sarin, R. K., & Sounderpandian, J. (2007). An examination of ambiguity aversion: Are two heads better than one? Judgment and Decision Making, 2(5), 390–397.Google Scholar
  24. Kühberger, A., & Perner, J. (2003). The role of competition and knowledge in the Ellsberg task. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16(3), 181–191. doi: 10.1002/bdm.441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Levati, M. V., Napel, S., & Soraperra, I. (2014). Collective choices under ambiguity. Working Paper. http://pubdb.wiwi.uni-jena.de/pdf/wp 2014 019.pdf. Accessed May 2016.
  26. Muthukrishnan, A. V., Wathieu, L., & Xu, A. J. (2009). Ambiguity aversion and the preference for established brands. Management Science, 55(12), 1933–1941. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1090.1087.
  27. Pulford, B. D., & Gill, P. (2014). Good luck, bad luck, and ambiguity aversion. Judgment and Decision Making, 9(2), 159–166.Google Scholar
  28. Rieger, M. O., & Wang, M. (2012). Can ambiguity aversion solve the equity premium puzzle? Survey evidence from international data. Finance Research Letters, 9(2), 63–72. doi: 10.1016/j.frl.2012.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schmidt, U., Friedl, A., & Lima de Miranda, K. (2015). Social comparison and gender differences in risk taking. Working Paper. https://www.ifw-members.ifw-kiel.de/publications/social-comparison-and-gender-differences-in-risk-taking/kwp-2011. Accessed May 2016.
  30. Schmidt, U., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (2008). Third-generation prospect theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 36(3), 203–223. doi: 10.1007/s11166-008-9040-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schubert, R., Brown, M., Gysler, M., & Brachinger, H. W. (2000). Gender specific attitudes towards risk and ambiguity: An experimental investigation. Working Paper. https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/mtec/cer-eth/cer-eth-dam/documents/working-papers/wp0017.pdf. Accessed May 2016.
  32. Trautmann, S. T., & Van de Kuilen, G. (2015). Ambiguity attitudes. In G. Keren & G. Wu (Eds.), The Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making (pp. 89–116). Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Trautmann, S. T., Vieider, F. M., & Wakker, P. P. (2008). Causes of ambiguity aversion: Known versus unknown preferences. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 36(3), 225–243. doi: 10.1007/s11166-008-9038-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Trautmann, S. T., Vieider, F. M., & Wakker, P. P. (2011). Preference reversals for ambiguity aversion. Management Science, 57(7), 1320–1333. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1110.1343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330400226

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Friedl
    • 1
    • 2
  • Patrick Ring
    • 1
    • 3
  • Ulrich Schmidt
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.Kiel Institute for the World EconomyKielGermany
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsKiel UniversityKielGermany
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyKiel UniversityKielGermany
  4. 4.Department of Economics and EconometricsUniversity of JohannesburgJohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations