2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.ehb.2018.07.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The 2D:4D ratio does not always correlate with economic behavior: A field experiment with African-Americans

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

1
3
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
1
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For both males and females, we find no robust association between right/left-hand 2D : 4D and generosity, bargaining or trust-related behaviours in any of the 40 regressions. These results are in line with recent evidence in Candelo & Eckel [52] and Parslow et al [53], who analyse DG giving in a sample of 115 African-Americans and 330 Swedish women, respectively. In a larger sample using a larger number of incentivized decisions, our results corroborate the lack of a direct relationship.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For both males and females, we find no robust association between right/left-hand 2D : 4D and generosity, bargaining or trust-related behaviours in any of the 40 regressions. These results are in line with recent evidence in Candelo & Eckel [52] and Parslow et al [53], who analyse DG giving in a sample of 115 African-Americans and 330 Swedish women, respectively. In a larger sample using a larger number of incentivized decisions, our results corroborate the lack of a direct relationship.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Some studies report negative effects [40,41], whereas others indicate positive effects [42][43][44][45][46] on prosocial behaviours such as generosity or cooperation. Null and nonlinear (mostly quadratic) relationships have also been frequently reported [47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54]. Other studies find 2D : 4D-context interactive effects where situational cues change the relationship between 2D : 4D and social behaviour.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…In light of the above, what may seem even more surprising is that there is a myriad of studies (but yet, with conflicting results) on the relationship between the digit ratios and numerous psychological, behavioral, and physiological characteristics, for instance sports performance (for a meta‐analysis, see Hönekopp & Schuster, 2010), aggressive behavior (for a meta‐analyses, see Hönekopp & Watson, 2011; Turanovic et al, 2017), grip strength (Fink et al, 2006; but see van Anders, 2007), substance and computer use (Siegmann et al, 2019; but see Borkowska & Pawlowski, 2013), prosocial behavior (Millet & Dewitte, 2006, 2009; but see Brañas‐Garza et al, 2019; de Miranda et al, 2018), sexual orientation (for a meta‐analysis, see Grimbos et al, 2010), number of children (Klimek et al, 2014, 2016; but see Sorokowski et al, 2012), personality traits (Borráz‐León et al, 2019; but see Candelo & Eckel, 2018), risk taking (Barel, 2019; but see Ronay et al, 2018), or handedness (for a meta‐analysis, see Richards, Medland, & Beaton, 2021). These conflicting results draw a puzzling portrait of the digit ratios, indicating that the previously assumed biological mechanism of differences in the 2D:4D may not be clear and straightforward.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In economics, interest in the relationship between the digit ratio and risk preferences was triggered by Coates and Herbert (2008), who found that financial traders' levels of circulating testosterone were positively related to their profits on trading days, and subsequent studies that partly explained this by finding digit ratios to be negatively associated with risk taking (Coates et al, 2009;Brañas-Garza and Rustichini, 2011). While some studies have confirmed the negative association between the digit ratio and the preference for risk taking (Garbarino et al, 2011;Stenstrom et al, 2011;Apicella et al, 2015), most studies could not confirm it, despite often having used similar research designs (Apicella et al, 2008;Candelo and Eckel, 2018;Drichoutis et al, 1998;Neyse et al, 2020;Parslow et al, 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%