Gender effects for loss aversion: Yes, no, maybe?

B-Tier
Journal: Journal of Risk and Uncertainty
Year: 2019
Volume: 59
Issue: 2
Pages: 171-184

Authors (8)

Ranoua Bouchouicha (not in RePEc) Lachlan Deer (not in RePEc) Ashraf Galal Eid (not in RePEc) Peter McGee (University of Arkansas) Daniel Schoch (American University of Ras Al ...) Hrvoje Stojic (not in RePEc) Jolanda Ygosse-Battisti (not in RePEc) Ferdinand M. Vieider (Universiteit Gent)

Score contribution per author:

0.251 = (α=2.01 / 8 authors) × 1.0x B-tier

α: calibrated so average coauthorship-adjusted count equals average raw count

Abstract

Abstract Gender effects in risk taking have attracted much attention by economists, and remain debated. Loss aversion—the stylized finding that a given loss carries substantially greater weight than a monetarily equivalent gain—is a fundamental driver of risk aversion. We deploy four definitions of loss aversion commonly used in the literature to investigate gender effects. Even though the definitions only differ in subtle ways, we find women to be more loss averse than men according to one definition, while another definition results in no gender differences, and the remaining two definitions point to women being less loss averse than men. Conceptually, these contradictory effects can be organized by systematic measurement error resulting from model mis-specifications relative to the true underlying decision process.

Technical Details

RePEc Handle
repec:kap:jrisku:v:59:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s11166-019-09315-3
Journal Field
Theory
Author Count
8
Added to Database
2026-01-25