Gender Differences in Stereotypes of Risk Preferences: Experimental Evidence from a Matrilineal and a Patrilineal Society

Pondorfer, Andreas; Barsbai, Toman; Schmidt, Ulrich

doi:10.1287/mnsc.2016.2505

Cited by 21 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While there is a difference in the mean risk preference of men and women in our sample, our subjects assigned the role of managers behave as if this difference were much larger. Our result is also consistent with Pondorfer et al (2017), who find that (despite no actual difference in risk preferences relative to men in their sample) men underestimate women's risk preferences in a patrilineal society, as well as with the finding in Dargnies (2012) that men do not avoid competition to punish “undeserving” low performers.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 92%

“…While there is a difference in the mean risk preference of men and women in our sample, our subjects assigned the role of managers behave as if this difference were much larger. Our result is also consistent with Pondorfer et al (2017), who find that (despite no actual Note: Cells in columns labeled (1) and ( 2) represent the percentage of managers who chose to compete on behalf of their direct reports in our experiment under the no information and information treatments. The simulated results are the estimated percentages of managers entering into competition for direct reports using the actual distributions of performance and risk preferences in our experimental sample.…”

Section: Managers' Discrimination When Earning For Otherssupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Alternatively, male homophily may be the result of statistical discrimination, whereby male managers believe (inaccurately) that female protégés' perform, on average, worse than male protégés (Aigner & Cain, 1977;Bordalo, Coffman, Gennaioli, & Shleifer, 2016). Statistical discrimination may also be based on the stereotype (Heilman, 2012) that female protégés are more risk averse than male protégés (Pondorfer, Barsbai, & Schmidt, 2017). Each of these mechanisms have different implications about how organizations should best respond to any discrimination in sponsorship, and we explore these possibilities after describing our experimental design and results from our first two sets of question.…”

Section: Competitiveness When Earning For Others and The Gender Of Ot...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Gender and competitiveness when earning for others: Experimental evidence and implications for sponsorship

Barrymore

Dezső

King

2021

Strategic Management Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Summary Career paths depend not only on individuals' own competitiveness but also on the competitiveness of others in a position to advocate for them. In this article, we study competitiveness when rewards accrue to another individual. In particular, we ask how female and male managers' competitiveness changes when rewards from competition accrue to their female or male protégés, relative to when they accrue to themselves. Using an experimental approach, we find that when rewards accrue to protégés, male and female managers are equally competitive because female managers increase their competitiveness. However, male managers compete more for male rather than female protégés. This gap disappears when male managers know their protégés' risk preferences, suggesting a novel intervention to ensure equity in the sponsorship process. Managerial Summary Sponsorship is key to individuals' career development and firms' human capital strategy. In this experimental study simulating an organizational setting, we investigate one aspect of sponsorship and ask whether managers' and protégés' genders affect managers' willingness to compete on behalf of their protégés. We find that when the rewards from competition accrue to protégés, female managers increase their competitiveness and eliminate the gender competitiveness gap present when rewards accrue to managers themselves. This suggests that, from a competitiveness standpoint, female and male managers are equally strong sponsors. However, male managers compete more for male, relative to female, protégés. This gap disappears when male managers have information about protégés' risks preferences, suggesting a novel approach that organizations can implement to reduce discrimination in sponsorship.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 92%

“…While there is a difference in the mean risk preference of men and women in our sample, our subjects assigned the role of managers behave as if this difference were much larger. Our result is also consistent with Pondorfer et al (2017), who find that (despite no actual Note: Cells in columns labeled (1) and ( 2) represent the percentage of managers who chose to compete on behalf of their direct reports in our experiment under the no information and information treatments. The simulated results are the estimated percentages of managers entering into competition for direct reports using the actual distributions of performance and risk preferences in our experimental sample.…”

Section: Managers' Discrimination When Earning For Otherssupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Competitiveness When Earning For Others and The Gender Of Ot...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gender and competitiveness when earning for others: Experimental evidence and implications for sponsorship

Barrymore

Dezső

King

2021

Strategic Management Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, several studies on financial behavior find that women are more risk-averse than men (Bernasek and Shwiff, 2001; Olsen and Cox, 2001; Gerxhani, 2007; Maxfield et al , 2010; Charness and Gneezy, 2012; Gibson et al , 2013; Lohse and Qari, 2014; Montford and Goldsmith, 2016; D’Attoma et al , 2017). On the contrary, other studies have not found strong evidence that gender is a significant predictor of financial risk tolerance (Feng and Seasholes, 2008; Bucciol et al , 2013; Chu et al , 2015; Pondorfer et al , 2016). In addition, the difference in risk tolerance cannot be explained only by gender itself but it is sensitive to other demographic variables such as income, education and marital status.…”

Section: Background Literature and Hypotheses Developmentmentioning

confidence: 73%

Women in control and tax compliance

Damayanti

Supramono²

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The study aims to empirically analyze the effects of the presence of female top managers and owners on corporate tax compliance. Design/methodology/approach Data for analysis were sourced from the World Bank Enterprise Surveys that involved 23,178 private firms in 98 countries. The surveys used a stratified random sampling method by using three criteria, namely, firm size, business sector and geographic region, within each country. Further, data are analyzed using the ordinal logistic regression and supported by the marginal effect analysis. Findings The results show that the presence of female top managers and owners is a significant factor that underlies the firm-level tax compliance difference when firms exhibit relatively lower compliance. Practical implications Although this study shows that the determinants of corporate tax compliance are very complex, there are also crucial roles of top managers and owners' gender. This study advises firms to use the gender equality strategy to generate the best human capital, especially in their top management levels. Besides, this study can be helpful in designing policies that facilitate women to reach top managerial levels or to own businesses as an alternative method to enhance tax compliance for developing countries that fail to generate optimal corporate income tax revenues. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no previous studies examine the effects of the presence of female top managers and business owners on firms’ tax compliance policies. This study contributes to extend the understanding of the important role of women in corporate strategic decision-making, especially in taxation policies in various developing countries.

show abstract

“…Research across psychology (Arch, 1993;Byrnes et al, 1999), decision-making (Jianakoplos and Bernasek, 1998;Halko et al, 2012;Charness and Gneezy, 2012) and entrepreneurial risk-taking (Masters and Meier, 1988;Sexton and Bowman-Upton, 1990) consistently suggests that women exhibit higher risk aversion tendencies than men, particularly regarding financial risk aversion (Jianakoplos and Bernasek, 1998). However, other studies do not find gender differences after controlling for items such as uncertainty (Sarin and Wieland, 2016), domain specificity/familiarity (Wieland and Sarin, 2012) and culture-specific stereotypes (Pondorfer et al, 2017).…”

Section: Risk Preferences and Framing Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender and entrepreneurial propensity: risk-taking and prosocial preferences in labour market entry decisions

Reichert

Bird

Farber

2021

SEJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aims to examine gender differences in risk-taking and prosociality through a hypothetical labour market entry choice experiment. Design/methodology/approach To explore differences between male and female subjects by risk levels and framing effects, a labour market entry choice task that manipulated risk conditions was administered to business school students whereby subjects chose between a managerial job at a company, starting a commercial business or starting a social enterprise. The experimental design isolated and tested the influence of the type of value creation, risk propensity and framing effects. The results were then statistically analysed to test for significant differences between the two gender groups. Findings Results indicate that in low-risk conditions women prefer the prosocial entrepreneurial option while men opt for purely commercial entrepreneurial activities. As risk increases, differences between men and women initially converge and then reverse under conditions of extreme risk, where men select the social entrepreneurial choice at a higher rate than women. Research limitations/implications The research was conducted within the single country context of Peru and carried out using a specific subset of potential entrepreneurs (i.e. business school students). Second and related, the experimental labour entry task was hypothetical. Whether decisions would hold if business school students faced an actual occupational choice remains open to further investigation. Practical implications The practical implication of the paper suggests that Peruvian business school students react differently towards potential labour market opportunities depending on their gender. Perhaps, because of gender biases common in the Latin American context, women appear to respond more positively to low-risk prosocial opportunities. However, as risk increases, contextual factors appear to become less important and reveal core sets of prosocially anchored men and commercially anchored women. Originality/value This research provides new insights into risk-taking and prosocial differences between men and women facing labour entry decisions, especially in a developing country context with strong gender norms, and is particularly useful to those with an interest in entrepreneurial propensity and in the identification and development of entrepreneurial women.

show abstract

Gender Differences in Stereotypes of Risk Preferences: Experimental Evidence from a Matrilineal and a Patrilineal Society

Cited by 21 publications

References 41 publications

Gender and competitiveness when earning for others: Experimental evidence and implications for sponsorship

Gender and competitiveness when earning for others: Experimental evidence and implications for sponsorship

Women in control and tax compliance

Gender and entrepreneurial propensity: risk-taking and prosocial preferences in labour market entry decisions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About