Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T10:55:23.936Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Room composition effects on risk taking by gender

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Marco Castillo,
Greg Leo and
Ragan PetrieOpen the ORCID record for Ragan Petrie[Opens in a new window]
Marco Castillo*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, USAThe Melbourne Institute, Melbourne, Australia
Greg Leo*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
Ragan Petrie*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, USAThe Melbourne Institute, Melbourne, Australia
*
marco.castillo@tamu.edu
gregleo@gmail.com
rpetrie@tamu.edu
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We present evidence of a direct social context effect on decision-making under uncertainty: the gender composition of those in the room when making individual risky decisions significantly alters choices even when the actions or presence of others are not payoff relevant. In our environment, decision makers do not know the choices made by others, nor can they be inferred from the experiment. We find that women become more risk taking as the proportion of men in the room increases, but the behavior of men is unaffected by who is present. We discuss some potential mechanisms for this result and conjecture it is driven by women being aware of the social context and imitating the expected behavior of others. Our results imply that the environment in which individual decisions are made can change expressed preferences and that aggregate behavior may be context dependent.

Keywords

GenderDecision context effectsRisk aversionExperiment

JEL classification

C91: Laboratory, Individual BehaviorD81: Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and UncertaintyJ16: Economics of Gender • Non-labor Discrimination

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , September 2020, pp. 895 - 911
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-019-09635-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Ambrus, A, Greiner, B, & Pathak, PA (2015). How individual preferences are aggregated in groups: An experimental study. Journal of Public Economics, 129, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J, & Bernheim, BD (2009). Social image and the 50–50 norm: A theoretical and experimental analysis of audience effects. Econometrica, 77(5), 1607–1636.Google Scholar
Asch, SE, & Guetzkow, H (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. Groups, Leadership, and Men, 84, 222–236.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S, Knickmeyer, RC, & Belmonte, MK (2005). Sex differences in the brain: Implications for explaining autism. Science, 310(5749), 819–823.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bertrand, M, Luttmer, EF, & Mullainathan, S (2000). Network effects and welfare cultures. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 1019–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogan, V, Just, RD, & Dev, CS (2013). Team gender diversity and investment decision-making behavior. Review of Behavioral Finance, 5(2), 134–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohnet, I, & Frey, BS (1999). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games: Comment. American Economic Review, 89(1), 335–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, R, & Smith, PB (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth, AL, Cardona-Sosa, L, & Nolen, P (2014). Gender differences in risk aversion: Do single-sex environments affect their development?. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 99, 126–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth, AL, & Nolen, P (2012). Gender differences in risk behaviour: Does nurture matter?. The Economic Journal, 122(558), F56–F78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buser, T, Niederle, M, & Oosterbeek, H (2014). Gender, competitiveness, and career choices. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(3), 1409–1447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G, & Gneezy, U (2012). Strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking. Journal of Economic Behavior Organization, 83(1), 50–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G, Gneezy, U, & Imas, A (2013). Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 87, 43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G, Rigotti, L, & Rustichini, A (2007). Individual behavior and group membership. American Economic Review, 97(4), 1340–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conley, TG, & Udry, CR (2010). Learning about a new technology: Pineapple in Ghana. American Economic Review, 100(1), 35–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, DJ, & Rege, M (2011). Misery loves company: Social regret and social interaction effects in choices under risk and uncertainty. Games and Economic Behavior, 73(1), 91–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, HM (1979). Statistically combining independent studies: A meta-analysis of sex differences in conformity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1), 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croson, R, & Gneezy, U (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 448–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dohmen, T, & Falk, A (2011). Performance pay and multidimensional sorting: Productivity, preferences, and gender. American Economic Review, 101(2), 556–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duflo, E, & Saez, E (2003). The role of information and social interactions in retirement plan decisions: Evidence from a randomized experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3), 815–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, AH, & Carli, LL (1981). Sex of researchers and sex-typed communications as determinants of sex differences in influenceability: A meta-analysis of social influence studies. Psychological Bulletin, 90(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckel, CC, & Grossman, PJ (2001). Chivalry and solidarity in ultimatum games. Economic Inquiry, 39(2), 171–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckel, CC, & Grossman, PJ (2008). Forecasting risk attitudes: An experimental study using actual and forecast gamble choices. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 68(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckel, CC, & Grossman, PJ (2008). Men, women and risk aversion: Experimental evidence. Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, 1, 1061–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, RA (1960). The design of experiments, 7Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google ScholarPubMed
Gneezy, U, Niederle, M, & Rustichini, A (2003). Performance in competitive environments: Gender differences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3), 1049–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gneezy, U, & Potters, J (1997). An experiment on risk taking and evaluation periods. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 631–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, PJ (2013). Holding fast: The persistence and dominance of gender stereotypes. Economic Inquiry, 51(1), 747–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, PJ, & Lugovskyy, O (2011). An experimental test of the persistence of gender-based stereotypes. Economic Inquiry, 49(2), 598–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heß, S (2017). Randomization inference with Stata: A guide and software. The Stata Journal, 17(3), 630–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kocher, MG, Pahlke, J, & Trautmann, ST (2013). Tempus fugit: Time pressure in risky decisions. Management Science, 59(10), 2380–2391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinger, G, & Schneider, DJ (1969). Test of the “risk is a value” hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11(2), 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, GS, & Säve-Söderbergh, J (2011). “Girls will be girls”, especially among boys: Risk-taking in the “daily double” on Jeopardy. Economics Letters, 112(2), 158–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manski, CF (1999). Identification problems in the social sciences, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Manski, CF (2000). Economic analysis of social interactions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClure, EB (2000). A meta-analytic review of sex differences in facial expression processing and their development in infants, children, and adolescents. Psychological Bulletin, 126(3), 424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGuire, WJ (1984). Search for the self: Going beyond self-esteem and the reactive self. Personality and the Prediction of Behavior, 73, 120.Google Scholar
Niederle, M, & Vesterlund, L (2007). Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much?. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1067–1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, IM, & Rohde, KI (2011). Risk attitudes in a social context. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 43(3), 205–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, A (2019). Channeling fisher: Randomization tests and the statistical insignificance of seemingly significant experimental results. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(2), 557–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zahn-Waxler, C, Shirtcliff, EA, & Marceau, K (2008). Disorders of childhood and adolescence: Gender and psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 275–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Castillo et al. supplementary material

Appendix
Download Castillo et al. supplementary material(File)
File 314 KB