IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ehbiol/v47y2022ics1570677x22000740.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Born to be wild: Second-to-fourth digit length ratio and risk preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Finley, Brian
  • Kalwij, Adriaan
  • Kapteyn, Arie

Abstract

The second-to-fourth digit length ratio of an individual’s hand (digit ratio) is a putative biomarker for prenatal exposure to testosterone. We examine the hypothesized negative association between the digit ratio and the preference for risk taking within a large U.S. population survey. Our statistical framework provides a cardinal proxy for the true digit ratio based on ordinal digit ratio measurements and accounts for measurement error under the assumptions of Gaussianity and time-invariant true digit ratios. Our empirical findings support the hypothesis and suggest a meaningful biological basis for risk preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Finley, Brian & Kalwij, Adriaan & Kapteyn, Arie, 2022. "Born to be wild: Second-to-fourth digit length ratio and risk preferences," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ehbiol:v:47:y:2022:i:c:s1570677x22000740
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ehb.2022.101178
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X22000740
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ehb.2022.101178?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:dgr:uvatin:20110046 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Daniel J. Benjamin & James O. Berger & Magnus Johannesson & Brian A. Nosek & E.-J. Wagenmakers & Richard Berk & Kenneth A. Bollen & Björn Brembs & Lawrence Brown & Colin Camerer & David Cesarini & Chr, 2018. "Redefine statistical significance," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(1), pages 6-10, January.
      • Daniel Benjamin & James Berger & Magnus Johannesson & Brian Nosek & E. Wagenmakers & Richard Berk & Kenneth Bollen & Bjorn Brembs & Lawrence Brown & Colin Camerer & David Cesarini & Christopher Chambe, 2017. "Redefine Statistical Significance," Artefactual Field Experiments 00612, The Field Experiments Website.
    3. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    4. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Jaromír Kovářík & Levent Neyse, 2013. "Second-to-Fourth Digit Ratio Has a Non-Monotonic Impact on Altruism," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(4), pages 1-10, April.
    5. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2023. "The Preference Survey Module: A Validated Instrument for Measuring Risk, Time, and Social Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(4), pages 1935-1950, April.
    6. Levent Neyse & Ferdinand M. Vieider & Patrick Ring & Catharina Probst & Christian Kaernbach & Thilo Eimeren & Ulrich Schmidt, 2020. "Risk attitudes and digit ratio (2D:4D): Evidence from prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 60(1), pages 29-51, February.
    7. Gary Charness & Thomas Garcia & Theo Offerman & Marie Claire Villeval, 2020. "Do measures of risk attitude in the laboratory predict behavior under risk in and outside of the laboratory?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 99-123, April.
    8. Buser, Thomas, 2012. "Digit ratios, the menstrual cycle and social preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 457-470.
    9. Kimball, Miles S & Sahm, Claudia R & Shapiro, Matthew D, 2008. "Imputing Risk Tolerance From Survey Responses," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 103(483), pages 1028-1038.
    10. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & Benjamin Enke & David B. Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2017. "Global Evidence on Economic Preferences," NBER Working Papers 23943, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Verschoor, Arjan & D’Exelle, Ben & Perez-Viana, Borja, 2016. "Lab and life: Does risky choice behaviour observed in experiments reflect that in the real world?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 134-148.
    12. Pablo Brañas‐Garza & Matteo M. Galizzi & Jeroen Nieboer, 2018. "Experimental And Self‐Reported Measures Of Risk Taking And Digit Ratio (2d:4d): Evidence From A Large, Systematic Study," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 59(3), pages 1131-1157, August.
    13. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & Benjamin Enke & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2018. "Global Evidence on Economic Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(4), pages 1645-1692.
    14. Jonathan P. Beauchamp & David Cesarini & Magnus Johannesson, 2017. "The psychometric and empirical properties of measures of risk preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(3), pages 203-237, June.
    15. Candelo, Natalia & Eckel, Catherine, 2018. "The 2D:4D ratio does not always correlate with economic behavior: A field experiment with African-Americans," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 172-181.
    16. Ellen Garbarino & Robert Slonim & Justin Sydnor, 2011. "Digit ratios (2D:4D) as predictors of risky decision making for both sexes," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 1-26, February.
    17. Nofsinger, John R. & Patterson, Fernando M. & Shank, Corey A., 2018. "Decision-making, financial risk aversion, and behavioral biases: The role of testosterone and stress," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 1-16.
    18. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    19. Neyse, Levent & Johannesson, Magnus & Dreber, Anna, 2021. "2D:4D does not predict economic preferences: Evidence from a large, representative sample," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 185, pages 390-401.
    20. Donkers, Bas & Melenberg, Bertrand & Van Soest, Arthur, 2001. "Estimating Risk Attitudes Using Lotteries: A Large Sample Approach," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 165-195, March.
    21. Andreas C. Drichoutis & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2015. "Do risk and time preferences have biological roots?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 82(1), pages 235-256, July.
    22. Bound, John & Brown, Charles & Mathiowetz, Nancy, 2001. "Measurement error in survey data," Handbook of Econometrics, in: J.J. Heckman & E.E. Leamer (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 59, pages 3705-3843, Elsevier.
    23. Kapteyn, Arie & Teppa, Federica, 2011. "Subjective measures of risk aversion, fixed costs, and portfolio choice," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 564-580, August.
    24. Elle Parslow & Eva Ranehill & Niklas Zethraeus & Liselott Blomberg & Bo Schoultz & Angelica Lindén Hirschberg & Magnus Johannesson & Anna Dreber, 2019. "The digit ratio (2D:4D) and economic preferences: no robust associations in a sample of 330 women," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(2), pages 149-169, December.
    25. van der Loos, Matthijs J. H. M. & Benjamin, Daniel J. & Cesarini, David & Dawes, Christopher T. & Koellinger, Philipp D. & Magnusson, Patrik K. E. & Chabris, Christopher F. & Conley, Dalton & Laibson,, 2012. "The Genetic Architecture of Economic and Political Preferences," Scholarly Articles 10121961, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    26. Werner Bönte & Vivien D. Procher & Diemo Urbig, 2016. "Biology and Selection into Entrepreneurship—The Relevance of Prenatal Testosterone Exposure," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 40(5), pages 1121-1148, September.
    27. Gary Charness & Catherine Eckel & Uri Gneezy & Agne Kajackaite, 2018. "Complexity in risk elicitation may affect the conclusions: A demonstration using gender differences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 1-17, February.
    28. John V C Nye & Gregory Androuschak & Desirée Desierto & Garett Jones & Maria Yudkevich, 2012. "2D:4D Asymmetry and Gender Differences in Academic Performance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(10), pages 1-16, October.
    29. David Cesarini & Christopher T. Dawes & Magnus Johannesson & Paul Lichtenstein & Björn Wallace, 2009. "Genetic Variation in Preferences for Giving and Risk Taking," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 124(2), pages 809-842.
    30. Nye, John V.C. & Bryukhanov, Maksym & Kochergina, Ekaterina & Orel, Ekaterina & Polyachenko, Sergiy & Yudkevich, Maria, 2017. "The effects of prenatal testosterone on wages: Evidence from Russia," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 43-60.
    31. repec:wly:soecon:v:82:1:y:2015:p:235-256 is not listed on IDEAS
    32. Klaas Sijtsma, 2009. "On the Use, the Misuse, and the Very Limited Usefulness of Cronbach’s Alpha," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 74(1), pages 107-120, March.
    33. Alan, Sule & Baydar, Nazli & Boneva, Teodora & Crossley, Thomas F. & Ertac, Seda, 2017. "Transmission of risk preferences from mothers to daughters," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 60-77.
    34. Wooldridge, Jeffrey M., 2014. "Quasi-maximum likelihood estimation and testing for nonlinear models with endogenous explanatory variables," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 182(1), pages 226-234.
    35. Pablo Brañas‐Garza & Matteo M. Galizzi & Jeroen Nieboer, 2018. "Experimental And Self‐Reported Measures Of Risk Taking And Digit Ratio (2d:4d): Evidence From A Large, Systematic Study," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 59(3), pages 1131-1157, August.
    36. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Aldo Rustichini, 2011. "Organizing Effects of Testosterone and Economic Behavior: Not Just Risk Taking," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(12), pages 1-8, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Chowdhury, Subhasish M. & Espín, Antonio M. & Nieboer, Jeroen, 2023. "‘Born this Way’? Prenatal exposure to testosterone may determine behavior in competition and conflict," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    2. Kalwij, Adriaan, 2023. "Risk preferences, preventive behaviour, and the probability of a loss: Empirical evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 334(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Neyse, Levent & Johannesson, Magnus & Dreber, Anna, 2021. "2D:4D does not predict economic preferences: Evidence from a large, representative sample," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 390-401.
    2. Schipper, Burkhard C., 2023. "Sex hormones and choice under risk," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    3. Kalwij, Adriaan, 2023. "Risk preferences, preventive behaviour, and the probability of a loss: Empirical evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 334(C).
    4. Elle Parslow & Eva Ranehill & Niklas Zethraeus & Liselott Blomberg & Bo Schoultz & Angelica Lindén Hirschberg & Magnus Johannesson & Anna Dreber, 2019. "The digit ratio (2D:4D) and economic preferences: no robust associations in a sample of 330 women," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(2), pages 149-169, December.
    5. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Chowdhury, Subhasish M. & Espín, Antonio M. & Nieboer, Jeroen, 2023. "‘Born this Way’? Prenatal exposure to testosterone may determine behavior in competition and conflict," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    6. Neyse, Levent & Vieider, Ferdinand M. & Ring, Patrick & Probst, Catharina & Kaernbach, Christian & Eimeren, Thilo van & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2020. "Risk attitudes and digit ratio (2D:4D): Evidence from prospect theory," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, issue 60, pages 29-51.
    7. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Jaromír Kovářík & Levent Neyse, 2013. "Second-to-Fourth Digit Ratio Has a Non-Monotonic Impact on Altruism," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(4), pages 1-10, April.
    8. Breitkopf, Laura & Chowdhury, Shyamal K. & Priyam, Shambhavi & Schildberg-Hörisch, Hannah & Sutter, Matthias, 2020. "Do economic preferences of children predict behavior?," DICE Discussion Papers 342, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    9. Michele Garagnani, 2023. "The predictive power of risk elicitation tasks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 165-192, October.
    10. Zimmermann, Klaus F. & Chowdhury, Shyamal & Sutter, Matthias, 2020. "Economic preferences across generations and family clusters: A large-scale experiment," CEPR Discussion Papers 14998, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Dahmann, Sarah C. & Kettlewell, Nathan & Lam, Jack, 2022. "Parental Separation and the Formation of Economic Preferences," IZA Discussion Papers 14993, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Judit Alonso & Roberto Di Paolo & Giovanni Ponti & Marcello Sartarelli, 2017. "Some (Mis)facts about 2D:4D, Preferences and Personality," Working Papers. Serie AD 2017-08, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    13. Brenøe, Anne Ardila & Epper, Thomas, 2022. "Parenting values and the intergenerational transmission of time preferences," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    14. Arslan, Ruben C. & Brümmer, Martin & Dohmen, Thomas & Drewelies, Johanna & Hertwig, Ralph & Wagner, Gert G., 2020. "How people know their risk preference," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 10.
    15. Breitkopf, Laura & Chowdhury, Shyamal & Priyam, Shambhavi & Schildberg-Hörisch, Hannah & Sutter, Matthias, 2024. "Do Economic Preferences of Children Predict Behavior?," IZA Discussion Papers 16834, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. Laura Breitkopf & Shyamal Chowdhury & Shambhavi Priyam & Hannah Schildberg-Hörisch & Matthias Sutter, 2024. "Do economic preferences of children predict behavior?," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2024_09, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    17. Paul Bokern & Jona Linde & Arno Riedl & Peter Werner, 2023. "The Robustness of Preferences during a Crisis: The Case of Covid-19," CESifo Working Paper Series 10595, CESifo.
    18. Dohmen, Thomas & Quercia, Simone & Willrodt, Jana, 2018. "Willingness to Take Risk: The Role of Risk Conception and Optimism," IZA Discussion Papers 11642, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Espín, Antonio M. & Garcia, Teresa & Kovářík, Jaromír, 2018. "Digit ratio (2D:4D) predicts pro-social behavior in economic games only for unsatisfied individuals," MPRA Paper 86166, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Boschini, Anne & Dreber, Anna & von Essen, Emma & Muren, Astri & Ranehill, Eva, 2019. "Gender, risk preferences and willingness to compete in a random sample of the Swedish population✰," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 83(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Risk preferences; Digit ratio; Measurement error; U.S. survey data;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • A12 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Relation of Economics to Other Disciplines
    • C8 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs
    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ehbiol:v:47:y:2022:i:c:s1570677x22000740. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622964 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.