Are Women Really More Risk‐averse Than Men? A Re‐analysis of the Literature Using Expanded Methods

Nelson, Julie A.

doi:10.1111/joes.12069

Cited by 195 publications

(123 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

112

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…4 However, the evidence for gender differences in risk preferences is not that clear (Niederle, 2016). See Nelson (2014) for a critique on generalizing statements. 5 Niederle & Vesterlund (2011) discuss three elicitation methods: (1) revealing risk preferences from choices in settings that do not involve any competition but involve a similar risk; (2) eliciting risk preferences from incentivized lotteries; or (3) from drawing upon stated risk preferences from a questionnaire.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Why Do Women Favor Same-Gender Competition? Evidence from a Choice Experiment

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in This version April 2017Abstract This paper addresses the behavioral puzzle of women's preference for competition when competitors are also women. Using a framed field experiment with 883 non-standard subjects, we show that none of the determinants of competitive behavior in general, including ability, self-confidence, and risk aversion, provide a satisfying explanation for women's substantive gender-related selection into competition. Nonetheless, women who are overconfident, i.e. over-estimate own abilities in performing a task, enter competition regardless of the gender-mix. Hence, the gender-pairing phenomenon is driven by women who correctly estimate or under-estimate own ability. We conclude that this is due to stereotypes about women's underperformance compared to men.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3 Thus, in order to determine the participants' self-confidence in a setting that is free from potential gender bias, we implement a 2 See Niederle & Vesterlund (2007), Niederle & Vesterlund (2011) and Kamas & Preston (2012). For a critique on generalizing statements concerning gender differences see Nelson (2014).…”

Section: Literature Review and Conjecturesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Do Women Favor Same-Gender Competition? Evidence from a Choice Experiment

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A review and analysis by Nelson (2015), however, finds the results to be more mixed, with some studies reporting higher female average risk taking and many cases in which the male advantage lacked statistical significance. more risk averse among persons drawn from the general population or among university students, studies that focus on managers and professionals have found little or no evidence of gender differences in financial risk preferences.…”

Section: Risk Aversionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Gender Wage Gap: Extent, Trends, and Explanations

Blau

Kahn

2017

Journal of Economic Literature

1,736

670

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) microdata over the 1980–2010 period, we provide new empirical evidence on the extent of and trends in the gender wage gap, which declined considerably during this time. By 2010, conventional human capital variables taken together explained little of the gender wage gap, while gender differences in occupation and industry continued to be important. Moreover, the gender pay gap declined much more slowly at the top of the wage distribution than at the middle or bottom and by 2010 was noticeably higher at the top. We then survey the literature to identify what has been learned about the explanations for the gap. We conclude that many of the traditional explanations continue to have salience. Although human-capital factors are now relatively unimportant in the aggregate, women's work force interruptions and shorter hours remain significant in high-skilled occupations, possibly due to compensating differentials. Gender differences in occupations and industries, as well as differences in gender roles and the gender division of labor remain important, and research based on experimental evidence strongly suggests that discrimination cannot be discounted. Psychological attributes or noncognitive skills comprise one of the newer explanations for gender differences in outcomes. Our effort to assess the quantitative evidence on the importance of these factors suggests that they account for a small to moderate portion of the gender pay gap, considerably smaller than, say, occupation and industry effects, though they appear to modestly contribute to these differences. ( JEL I26, J16, J24, J31, J71)

show abstract

“…For example, if the analysis of two different sustainability initiatives for the reduction of CO 2 emissions finds results that are both "statistically significant", but the first initiative reduces emissions by 1%, while the second reduces them by 10%, then the latter is more effective for environmental protection having greater "substantive significance". For this reason, confusing these concepts can lead to systematic and dangerous biases in scientific research (Ziliak & McCloskey, 2008) and, consequently, to biased management and policy decisions, as has been shown in psychology (Hyde, 2005;Fine, 2010), economics (Filippin & Crosetto, 2014;Nelson, 2014) and many other different fields, from political sciences to medicine and pharmacology (Ziliak & McCloskey, 2008).…”

Section: The Difference Between Statistical Significance and Substantmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences in customer expectations and perceptions of corporate social responsibility

Calabrese

Costa

Rosati

2016

Journal of Cleaner Production

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The literature on business ethics, corporate social responsibility and sustainability includes many studies on gender differences, however the results are often contrasting. In particular, there has not yet been full agreement on the role and significance of gender differences in customer expectations and perceptions of responsible corporate conduct. An extensive review of the research on the subject reveals that the published studies have not dealt with the substantive significance of gender differences, and as a result, the size of such differences is unknown. The current study analyses both the statistical and the substantive significance of gender differences in customer expectations and perceptions of corporate responsibility, also examining the influence of age and education. The analysis is carried out on a remarkably large sample of 908 clients, pertaining to 12 of the largest Italian banks. The overall resultsshow that there is a small substantive difference between women's and men's average expectations, with women showing higher average values than men. This result holds generally true with variation of education levels and age groups. Young females show the highest average values of expectations, and the significance of gender differences decreases with age. In contrast, the perception of corporate social responsibility does not show significant gender differences, either at the general level or when the analyses are repeated by education levels and age groups. The paper introduces the use of a standardized measure of effect size for analysing the substantive significance of gender differences in customer expectations and perceptions of corporate social responsibility. This novel approach increases results reliability and, accordingly, the effectiveness of company or policy maker strategies in designing, planning, implementing and assessing sustainability initiatives.

show abstract

Are Women Really More Risk‐averse Than Men? A Re‐analysis of the Literature Using Expanded Methods

Cited by 195 publications

References 61 publications

Why Do Women Favor Same-Gender Competition? Evidence from a Choice Experiment

Why Do Women Favor Same-Gender Competition? Evidence from a Choice Experiment

The Gender Wage Gap: Extent, Trends, and Explanations

Gender differences in customer expectations and perceptions of corporate social responsibility

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About