Gender, Financial Risk, and Probability Weights


Women are commonly stereotyped as more risk averse than men in financial decision making. In this paper we examine whether this stereotype reflects gender differences in actual risk-taking behavior by means of a laboratory experiment with monetary incentives. Gender differences in risk taking may be due to differences in valuations of outcomes or in probability weights. The results of our experiment indicate that value functions do not differ significantly between men and women. Men and women differ in their probability weighting schemes, however. In general, women tend to be less sensitive to probability changes. They also tend to underestimate large probabilities of gains more strongly than do men. This effect is particularly pronounced when the decisions are framed in investment terms. As a result, women appear to be more risk averse than men in specific circumstances.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. J.P. Byrnes D.C. Miller W.D. Schafer (1999) ArticleTitleGender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis Psychological Bulletin 125 367–383 Occurrence Handle10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. C.C. Eckel P.J. Grossman (2002) ArticleTitleSex differences and statistical stereotyping in attitudes toward financial risk Evolution and Human Behavior 23 281–295 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00097-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. C.C. Eckel P.J. Grossman (2005) The difference in the economic decisions of men and women: Experimental evidence C. Plott V.L. Smith (Eds) Handbook of Experimental Economics Results NumberInSeriesVol. 1 North-Holland Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  4. B. Efron (1979) ArticleTitleBootstrap methods: Another look at the Jackknife Annals of Statistics 7 1–26

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fischbacher, U. (1999). Z-Tree. Zurich Toolbox for Readymade Economic Experiments. Institute of Empirical Economic Research, University of Zurich, Working Paper No. 21.

  6. R. Gonzalez G. Wu (1999) ArticleTitleOn the shape of the probability weighting function Cognitive Psychology 38 129–166 Occurrence Handle10.1006/cogp.1998.0710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gysler, M., Brown Kruse, J. and Schubert, R. (2002). Ambiguity and gender differences in financial decision making: An experimental examination of competence and confidence effects. Center for Economic Research, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Working Paper.

  8. W.T. Harbaugh K. Krause L. Vesterlund (2002) ArticleTitleRisk attitudes of children and adults: Choices over small and large probability gains and losses Experimental Economics 5 53–84 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1016316725855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. P.K. Lattimore J.K. Baker A.D. Witte (1992) ArticleTitleThe influence of probability on risky choice: A parametric examination Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 17 377–400 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0167-2681(95)90015-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Moore, E. and Eckel, C. (2003). Measuring Ambiguity Aversion, mimeo.

  11. J. Quiggin (1982) ArticleTitleA theory of anticipated utility Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3 323–343 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0167-2681(82)90008-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Schubert, R., Gysler, M., Brown, M. and Brachinger, H. W. (2000). Gender-specific attitudes towards risk and ambiguity: An experimental investigation. Center for Economic Research, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Working Paper.

  13. S. Siegel N.J. Castellan SuffixJr. (1988) Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences McGraw-Hill New York

    Google Scholar 

  14. A. Tversky D. Kahneman (1992) ArticleTitleAdvances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5 297–323 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF00122574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. H. Walther (2003) ArticleTitleNormal-randomness expected utility, time preferences and emotional distortions Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 52 253–266 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0167-2681(03)00005-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wu G. and Markle A. B. (2004). An Empirical Test of Gain–Loss Separability in Prospect Theory, mimeo.

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helga Fehr-Duda.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fehr-Duda, H., de Gennaro, M. & Schubert, R. Gender, Financial Risk, and Probability Weights. Theor Decis 60, 283–313 (2006).

Download citation


  • gender differences
  • risk aversion
  • financial decision making
  • prospect theory
  • probability weighting function