Advertisement

Financial Markets and Portfolio Management

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 95–110 | Cite as

Further examination of the demographic and social factors affecting risk aversion

  • Tchai TavorEmail author
  • Sharon Garyn-Tal
Article
  • 237 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper we examine how social and demographic factors explain risk aversion. Specifically, we focus on how an individual’s place of residence effects his level of risk aversion. Israel is a natural experiment field for such an investigation since the majority of its population lives either in big or small cities, moshavs, or kibbutzim, where the last two forms of settlement being unique to Israel. The kibbutz follows the prototype of a collectivist culture; the moshav follows the prototype of an individualistic culture. This environment also allows us to reexamine the contradiction between the “cushion hypothesis” and previous findings regarding the risk aversion of Israeli kibbutz residents. In general, we find that the moshav respondents demonstrate the lowest level of risk aversion and the kibbutz (and the small city) respondents demonstrate the highest. However, further examination reveals that the risk aversions are domain specific. The urban residents of both big and small cites are similar to each other than they are to residents of the kibbutz and the moshav, who, in turn, are more similar to each other than they are to the urban residents. For example, kibbutz and moshav respondents are less risk averse in insurance and gambling, but more risk averse in driving and sport, compared to urban residents. Interestingly, on average, the respondents demonstrate the highest level of risk aversion for extreme sports and the lowest level of risk aversion for irresponsible driving.

Keywords

Risk aversion Place of residence Collective and individualistic cultures The cushion hypothesis 

JEL Classification

G00 J1 Z1 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the anonymous referee for detailed comments and suggestions that were very helpful in improving the paper.

References

  1. Adler, R.S., Pittle, R.D.: Cajolery or command: are educated campaigns an adequate substitute for regulation? Yale J. Regul. 1, 159–194 (1983)Google Scholar
  2. Andresen, B.: Six basic dimensions of personality and a seventh factor of generalized dysfunctional personality: a diathesis system covering all personality disorders. Neuropsychobiology 41, 5–23 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arch, E.C.: Risk taking: a motivational basis for sex differences. Psychol. Rep. 73, 3–11 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barke, R.P., Jenkins-Smith, H., Slovic, P.: Risk perceptions of men and women scientists. Soc. Sci. Q. 78, 167–176 (1997)Google Scholar
  5. Barnett, J., Breakwell, G.M.: Risk perception and experience: hazard personality profiles and individual differences. Risk Anal. 21, 171–178 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Byrnes, J.P., Miller, D.C., Schafer, W.D.: Gender differences in risk taking: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 125, 367–383 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheung, H.Y., Wu, J., Tao, J.: Risk perception and risk-taking attitude: a comparison between Hong Kong and mainland Chinese undergraduate students. Asia-Pac. Educ. Res. 22, 497–506 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eriksson, K., Simpson, B.: Emotional reactions to losing explain gender differences in entering a risky lottery. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 5, 159–163 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. Eysenck, S.B.G., Eysenck, H.J.: The place of impulsiveness in a dimensional system of personality description. Br. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 16, 57–68 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fan, J.X., Xiao, J.J.: Cross-cultural differences in risk tolerance: a comparison between Chinese and Americans. J. Pers. Financ. 5, 54–75 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. Finucane, M.L., Slovic, P., Mertz, C.K., Flynn, J., Satterfield, T.A.: Gender, race, and perceived risk: the “white male” effect. Health Risk Soc. 2, 159–172 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Flynn, J., Slovic, P., Mertz, C.K.: Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal. 14, 1101–1108 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Franken, R.E.: Sensation seeking, decision making styles and preference for individual responsibility. Personal. Individ. Differ. 9, 139–146 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gardner, G.T., Gould, L.C.: Public perceptions of the risks and benefits of technology. Risk Anal. 9, 225–242 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garvin, T.: Analytical paradigms: the epistemological distances between scientists, policy makers, and the public. Risk Anal. 21, 443–455 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gilliam, J., Chatterjee, S., Grable, J.: Measuring the perception of financial risk tolerance: a tale of two measures. J. Financ. Couns. Plan. 21, 30–43 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. Grable, J., Joo, S.H., Park, J.Y.: Cross cultural risk-tolerance self-evaluation bias: comparing South Koreans and Americans. 69, 261–273 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. Gutteling, J.M., Wiegman, O.: Gender-specific reactions to environmental hazards in the Netherlands. Sex Roles 28, 433–447 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gwartney-Gibbs, P.A., Lach, D.H.: Sex differences in attitudes toward nuclear war. J. Peace Res. 28, 161–174 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hsee, C.K., Weber, E.U.: Cross-national differences in risk preference and lay predictions. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 12, 165–179 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levin, I.P., Snyder, M.A., Chapman, D.P.: The interaction of experimental and situational factors and gender in a simulated risky decision-making task. J. Psychol. 122, 173–181 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lupton, D.: Risk. Routledge, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  23. Marshall, R., Huan, T.C.T., Xu, Y., Nam, I.: Extending prospect theory cross-culturally by examining switching behavior in consumer and business-to-business contexts. J. Bus. Res. 64, 871–878 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McNeil, B.J., Pauker, S.G., Sox Jr, H.C., Tversky, A.: On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N. Engl J. Med. 306, 1259–1262 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rosenboim, M., Shavit, T., Shoham, A.: Financial decision making in collective society—a field test on Israeli kibbutz members and city residents. J. Soc.-Econ. 39, 30–36 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Siegrist, M., Cvetovich, G.: Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal. 20, 713–720 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G., Gutscher, H.: Risk preference predictions and gender stereotypes. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 87, 91–102 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Slovic, P., Malmfors, T., Krewski, D., Mertz, C.K., Neil, N., Bartlett, S.: Intuitive toxicology. II. Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks in Canada. Risk Anal. 15, 661–675 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Statman, M., Weng, J.A.: Investments across cultures. J. Invest. Consult. 11, 37–44 (2010)Google Scholar
  30. Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Kalof, L.: Value orientations, gender, and environmental concerns. Environ. Behav. 24, 322–348 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Svenson, O., Fischhoff, B., MacGregor, D.: Perceived driving safety and seatbelt usage. Accid. Anal. Prev. 17, 119–133 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wandersman, A.H., Hallman, W.K.: Are people acting irrationally? Understanding public concerns about environmental threats. Am. Psychol. 48, 681–686 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang, M., Rieger, M.O., Hens, T.: How time preferences differ: evidence from 45 countries. Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper (2010)Google Scholar
  34. Zhu, R., Dholakia, U.M., Chen, X., Algesheimer, R.: Does online community participation foster risky financial behavior? J. Mark. Res. 49, 394–407 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zuckerman, M.: Sensation Seeking: Beyond the Optimal Level of Arousal. Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1979)Google Scholar
  36. Zuckerman, M.: Sensation seeking: the balance between risk and reward. In: Lipsitt, L.P., Mitnick, L.L. (eds.) Self-Regulatory Behaviour and Risk Taking: Causes and Consequences, pp. 143–152. Ablex Publishing, Norwood (1991)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Swiss Society for Financial Market Research 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and ManagementThe Max Stern Yezreel Valley Academic CollegeEmek YezreelIsrael

Personalised recommendations