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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Banerjee, D. (2014). Ethnicity and gender differences in risk, ambiguity attitude. Working Paper. http://purl.umn.edu/180978. Accessed May 2016.
Bateman, A. (1948). Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity, 2, 349–368. doi:10.1038/hdy.1948.21.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (2001). Risk-taking, intrasexual competition, and homicide. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 47, 1–36.
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.
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.
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.
Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75(4), 643–669.
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.
Fox, C. R., & Tversky, A. (1995). Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(3), 585–603.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pulford, B. D., & Gill, P. (2014). Good luck, bad luck, and ambiguity aversion. Judgment and Decision Making, 9(2), 159–166.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Friedl, A., Ring, P. & Schmidt, U. Gender differences in ambiguity aversion under different outcome correlation structures. Theory Decis 82, 211–219 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-016-9565-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-016-9565-9