Gender differences in risk aversion : Do single-sex environments affect their development?

Abstract

Single-sex classes within coeducational environments are likely to modify students' risktaking attitudes in economically important ways. To test this, we designed a controlled experiment using first year college students who made choices over real-stakes lotteries at two distinct dates. Students were randomly assigned to weekly classes of three types: all female, all male, and coeducational. They were not allowed to change group subsequently. We found that women are less likely to make risky choices than men at both dates. However, after eight weeks in a single-sex class environment, women were significantly more likely to choose the lottery than their counterparts in coeducational groups. These results are robust to the inclusion of controls for IQ and for personality type, as well as to a number of sensitivity tests. Our findings suggest that observed gender differences in behaviour under uncertainty found in previous studies might partly reflect social learning rather than inherent gender traits.JEL Classification: C9, C91, C92, J16, D01, D80, J16, J24

Assimilation in the Risk Preferences of Spouses

“…By showing direct evidence for the assimilation of risk preferences within the couple, we posit that risk preferences can change over time and adapt to changing circumstances. This is consistent with accounts showing the dependence of risk preferences on subtle social clues (Booth, Cardona‐Sosa, and Nolen ; Booth and Nolen ). The results thus support theories that rely on quick transitions in risk preferences between generations, with preferences either consciously instilled by parents into children to adapt to economic circumstances (Doepke and Zilibotti ; Klasing ), or transmitted culturally with potential tipping points accelerating the spread.…”

Stability of experimental and survey measures of risk, time, and social preferences: A review and some new results

“…Lührmann et al (2015) find that randomly providing high school students with financial education decreases present bias. Booth et al (2014) find that randomly assigning female college students to single-sex discussion sections causes them to make more risky decisions in games. On the other hand, Dasgupta et al (2014) find that a randomized vocational training program among women residing in Indian slums does not effect risk preferences.…”

Women Politicians, Institutions, and Perceptions of Corruption

“…Similarly, research on financial risk shows that, independent of their actual tolerance for risk, financial advisors systematically overestimated men’s willingness to assume financial risk and underestimated women’s risk tolerance (Roszkowski & Grable, 2005). These gendered perceptions reflect deep socialization whereby “boys are often pushed to take risks” and “girls are often encouraged to remain cautious” (Booth & Nolen, 2009, p. 1). Similarly, female politicians are often characterized as excessively cautious.…”