Is social choice gender-neutral? Reference dependence and sexual selection in decisions toward risk and inequality
- 535 Downloads
This article examines redistribution of income in privately and socially risky environments. A majority of women are risk averse and behave according to the Golden Rule while a majority of men are risk seeking in some part of the income distribution and treat others differently than they treat themselves. Our experiments allow subjects to increase or reduce spreads in a five-element income distribution. All changes reduce average pay so any change is costly. Changes may be made that affect only the individual subject and reflect behavior toward risk or behind a veil of ignorance that is thought to induce just behavior, or as an observer. On average women tend to reduce spreads across all conditions, treating others as they treat themselves and reducing risk and inequality to the same degree. Thus, their behavior, on average, follows a concave utility function whether applied to themselves or others. Men generally increase spreads in at least one tail of the distribution if only their pay is affected. However, men either abstain or reduce spreads to the degree others are involved and therefore reduce spreads most when acting as observers. Behavior of men cannot be described either by a concave utility function or by a function that makes no distinction between themselves and others. The gender differences conform to theories of sexual selection.
KeywordsGender and risk Social comparison Reference dependence Inequality aversion Social reference points Veil of ignorance
JEL ClassificationsC9 D3 D8
We thank Dean Guanhua Huang (International College Beijing, China Agricultural University) Sarah Brosnan, Lise Vesterlund, Maleiah Beckman, Laura Gee, John Bishop, Zoë June Smith, Buhong Zheng, and Gary Charness for comments on an earlier version. We also are grateful to an anonymous referee and the Board of Editors for comments and suggestions.
- Arrow, K. J. (1965). Aspects of the theory of risk bearing. The Theory of Risk Aversion. Helsinki: Yrjo Jahnssonin Saatio, 90–120.Google Scholar
- Atkinson, A. (1970). On the measurement of inequality. Journal of Economic Theory, reprinted in Social Justice and Public Policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1983.Google Scholar
- Baker, M. D., & Maner, J. K. (2009). Male risk-taking as a context-sensitive signaling device. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(5), 1136–1139.Google Scholar
- Bishop, J., Formby, J. P., & Smith, W. J. (1991). Incomplete information, income redistribution and risk averse median voter behavior. Public Choice, 68(1), 41–55.Google Scholar
- Byrnes, J., Miller, D., & Schafer, W. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 367-383.Google Scholar
- Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
- Geary, D. (2010). Male, Female. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
- Greiner, B. (2004). An online recruitment system for economic experiments. Forschung und wissenschaftliches Rechnen, 63, 79–93.Google Scholar
- Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010a). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466(29). doi: 10.1038/466029a.
- Okun, A. (1975). Equality and efficiency: The big tradeoff. Washington: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
- Rabin, M. (2000). Risk aversion and expected-utility theory: A calibration theorem. Econometrica, 68(5), 1281–1292.Google Scholar
- Trautmann, S. T., & Vieider, F. M. (2012). Social influences on risk attitudes: Applications in economics. Handbook of Risk Theory. The Netherlands: Springer, 575–600.Google Scholar
- Wakker, P. (2010). Prospect theory: For risk and ambiguity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar