2014
DOI: 10.1093/cesifo/ifu018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Can Risk-taking Preferences be Modified? Some Experimental Evidence

Abstract: 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… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, the questionnaire asks about individuals’ gender, because we assume that the proportion of male and female market participants influences the occurrence and extent of bubbles. This assumption is based on Eckel and Füllbrunn (2015) who document a positive relationship between the magnitude of price bubbles and the percentage of men in financial markets and on Booth and Nolen (2014) who reveal that single‐gender environments influence risk taking in the sense that, e.g. women take more risk when no men participate in the experiment.…”
Section: Questionnaire Experimental Design and Variable Descriptionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, the questionnaire asks about individuals’ gender, because we assume that the proportion of male and female market participants influences the occurrence and extent of bubbles. This assumption is based on Eckel and Füllbrunn (2015) who document a positive relationship between the magnitude of price bubbles and the percentage of men in financial markets and on Booth and Nolen (2014) who reveal that single‐gender environments influence risk taking in the sense that, e.g. women take more risk when no men participate in the experiment.…”
Section: Questionnaire Experimental Design and Variable Descriptionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has been conjectured that women may be discouraged from making riskier choices, in male-female groups, because they are inhibited by culturally driven norms about the appropriate mode of female behavior which is avoiding risk (Booth & Nolen, 2015).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our expectation is that, in a better environment (i.e., where corruption is lower), female firms are more confident about the success of their applications and tend to refrain lessthan it would happen in a more corrupt environmentfrom applying for bank loans. Alternatively, we may find that women's discouragement is independent of the surrounding environment and female leaders tend to self-refrain, more than male ones, just because of their intrinsic attitude in being less confident about their entrepreneurial capabilities as well as in being more risk-averse (Booth and Nolen, 2015;Caliendo et al, 2015;Carter et al, 2015;Crosetto et al, 2015).…”
Section: Assessing Whether Corruption Influences Women-led Firms' Decmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…As regards the link between the social environment and the enterprise's gender, we find that corruption does not seem to drive the behaviour of firms with regards to their propensity to avoid bank loans applications. This might be due to an intrinsic attitude of women in generally being more risk-averse and less confident about their entrepreneurial capabilities than men (Booth and Nolen, 2015;Caliendo et al, 2015;Carter et al, 2015;Crosetto et al, 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%