Not-So-Strong Evidence for Gender Differences in Risk Taking.
Based on a growing body of experimental and other studies, two recent economics survey articles claim to find “strong evidence” that women are “fundamental[ly]” more risk-averse than men. Yet, much of the literature fails to clearly distinguish between differences that hold at theindividuallevel (ca...
| Publicado en: | Feminist Economics Vol. 22; no. 2; pp. 114 - 143 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Taylor & Francis Ltd
Apr2016
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=113744297&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 113744297 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 13545701 5B8 jtl: Feminist Economics issn: 13545701 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Apr2016 vid: 22 iid: 2 pid: 377 pub: Taylor & Francis Ltd artinfo: ui: 113744297 10.1080/13545701.2015.1057609 ppf: 114 ppct: 29 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 317KB tig: atl: Not-So-Strong Evidence for Gender Differences in Risk Taking. aug: au: Nelson, Julie A. affil: University of Massachusetts, Boston – Department of Economics, 100 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston, MA02125, USA su: Gender differences (Psychology) Risk-taking behavior Women's attitudes Men's attitudes Data analysis sug: subj: Gender differences (Psychology) Risk-taking behavior Women's attitudes Men's attitudes Data analysis keyword: D03 D81 effect size gender J16 risk Risk aversion stereotyping ab: Based on a growing body of experimental and other studies, two recent economics survey articles claim to find “strong evidence” that women are “fundamental[ly]” more risk-averse than men. Yet, much of the literature fails to clearly distinguish between differences that hold at theindividuallevel (categorical differences between men and women) and patterns that appear only at theaggregatelevel (statistically detectable differences in men's and women's distributions, such as different means). There is a resulting problem of possible misinterpretation, as well as a dearth of appropriate attention to substantive significance. Additionally, one of the two surveys suffers from problems of statistical validity, possibly due to confirmation bias. Applying appropriate, expanded statistical techniques to the same data, this study finds substantial similarity and overlap between the distributions of men and women in risk taking, and a difference in means that is not substantively large. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Copyright of Feminist Economics is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. item: Feminist Economics holder: Taylor & Francis Ltd dt: @attributes: year: 2016 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|