IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/espost/222433.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk attitudes and digit ratio (2D:4D): Evidence from prospect theory

Author

Listed:
  • Neyse, Levent
  • Vieider, Ferdinand M.
  • Ring, Patrick
  • Probst, Catharina
  • Kaernbach, Christian
  • Eimeren, Thilo van
  • Schmidt, Ulrich

Abstract

Prenatal androgens have organizational effects on brain and endocrine system development, which may have a partial impact on economic decisions. Numerous studies have investigated the relationship between prenatal testosterone and financial risk taking, yet results remain inconclusive. We suspect that this is due to difficulty in capturing risk preferences with expected utility based tasks. Prospect theory, on the other hand, suggests that risk preferences differ between gains, losses and mixed prospects, as well as for different probability levels. This study investigates the relationship between financial risk taking and 2D:4D, a putative marker of prenatal testosterone exposure, in the framework of prospect theory. We conducted our study with 350 participants of Caucasian and Asian ethnicities. We do not observe any significant relationship between 2D:4D and risk taking in either of these domains and ethnicities.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:espost:222433
    DOI: 10.1007/s11166-020-09321-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/222433/1/Neyse2020_Article_RiskAttitudesAndDigitRatio2D4D.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11166-020-09321-w?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Filippin, Antonio & Crosetto, Paolo, 2014. "A Reconsideration of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes," IZA Discussion Papers 8184, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Ferdinand M. Vieider & Peter Martinsson & Pham Khanh Nam & Nghi Truong, 2019. "Risk preferences and development revisited," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(1), pages 1-21, February.
    3. WilliamT Harbaugh & Kate Krause & Lise Vesterlund, 2010. "The Fourfold Pattern of Risk Attitudes in Choice and Pricing Tasks," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 120(545), pages 595-611, June.
    4. Patricio S. Dalton & Sayantan Ghosal, 2014. "Self-Confidence, Overconfidence and Prenatal Testosterone Exposure: Evidence from the Lab," Working Papers 2014_02, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
    5. Friedl, Andreas & Neyse, Levent & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2018. "Payment scheme changes and effort Adjustment: The role of 2D:4D digit ratio," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 86-94.
    6. Uri Gneezy & Jan Potters, 1997. "An Experiment on Risk Taking and Evaluation Periods," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 631-645.
    7. Schipper, Burkhard C., 2023. "Sex hormones and choice under risk," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    8. Ferdinand M. Vieider & Abebe Beyene & Randall Bluffstone & Sahan Dissanayake & Zenebe Gebreegziabher & Peter Martinsson & Alemu Mekonnen, 2018. "Measuring Risk Preferences in Rural Ethiopia," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 66(3), pages 417-446.
    9. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 2008. "Men, Women and Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 113, pages 1061-1073, Elsevier.
    10. Galizzi, Matteo M. & Nieboer, Jeroen, 2015. "Digit ratio (2D:4D) and altruism: evidence from a large, multi-ethnic sample," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 60982, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. Matthew Rabin, 2000. "Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1281-1292, September.
    13. Diego Aycinena & Rimvydas Baltaduonis & Lucas Rentschler, 2014. "Risk Preferences and Prenatal Exposure to Sex Hormones for Ladinos," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(8), pages 1-10, August.
    14. George Wu & Richard Gonzalez, 1996. "Curvature of the Probability Weighting Function," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(12), pages 1676-1690, December.
    15. Buser, Thomas, 2012. "Digit ratios, the menstrual cycle and social preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 457-470.
    16. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    17. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1325-1348, December.
    18. M. Keith Chen & Venkat Lakshminarayanan & Laurie R. Santos, 2006. "How Basic Are Behavioral Biases? Evidence from Capuchin Monkey Trading Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(3), pages 517-537, June.
    19. 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.
    20. Ferdinand M. Vieider, 2018. "Violence and Risk Preference: Experimental Evidence from Afghanistan: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(8), pages 2366-2382, August.
    21. Cohen, Michele & Jaffray, Jean-Yves & Said, Tanios, 1987. "Experimental comparison of individual behavior under risk and under uncertainty for gains and for losses," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 1-22, February.
    22. Neyse, Levent & Bosworth, Steven & Ring, Patrick & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2016. "Overconfidence, Incentives and Digit Ratio," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 130145, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    23. repec:wly:soecon:v:82:1:y:2015:p:235-256 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Lima de Miranda, Katharina & Neyse, Levent & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2018. "Risk Preferences and Predictions about Others: No Association with 2D:4D Ratio," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 230949, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    26. Antonio Filippin, 2022. "Gender differences in risk attitudes," IZA World of Labor, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), pages 100-100, October.
    27. Antonio Filippin & Paolo Crosetto, 2016. "A Reconsideration of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(11), pages 3138-3160, November.
    28. Matthew Pearson & Burkhard Schipper, 2012. "The visible hand: finger ratio (2D:4D) and competitive bidding," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(3), pages 510-529, September.
    29. Olivier l'Haridon & Ferdinand M. Vieider, 2019. "All over the map: A worldwide comparison of risk preferences," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 10(1), pages 185-215, January.
    30. Simon Gächter & Eric J. Johnson & Andreas Herrmann, 2022. "Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 599-624, April.
    31. Kobberling, Veronika & Wakker, Peter P., 2005. "An index of loss aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 119-131, May.
    32. Guiso, Luigi & Rustichini, Aldo, 2018. "What drives women out of management? The joint role of testosterone and culture," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 221-237.
    33. Bock, Olaf & Baetge, Ingmar & Nicklisch, Andreas, 2014. "hroot: Hamburg Registration and Organization Online Tool," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 117-120.
    34. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    35. Ferdinand M. Vieider & Mathieu Lefebvre & Ranoua Bouchouicha & Thorsten Chmura & Rustamdjan Hakimov & Michal Krawczyk & Peter Martinsson, 2015. "Common Components Of Risk And Uncertainty Attitudes Across Contexts And Domains: Evidence From 30 Countries," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 13(3), pages 421-452, June.
    36. 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.
    37. Dhami, Sanjit, 2016. "The Foundations of Behavioral Economic Analysis," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198715535.
    38. 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.
    39. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Enrico Diecidue & Ayse Öncüler, 2011. "Risk Preferences at Different Time Periods: An Experimental Investigation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 975-987, May.
    40. 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.
    41. John C. Hershey & Paul J. H. Schoemaker, 1985. "Probability Versus Certainty Equivalence Methods in Utility Measurement: Are they Equivalent?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(10), pages 1213-1231, October.
    42. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    43. Ganzach, Yoav & Karsahi, Nili, 1995. "Message framing and buying behavior: A field experiment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 11-17, January.
    44. Arthur J. Robson, 2001. "The Biological Basis of Economic Behavior," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 39(1), pages 11-33, March.
    45. Wehrung, Donald A & Lee, Kam-Hon & Tse, David K. & Vertinsky, Ilan B., 1989. "Adjusting Risky Situations: A Theoretical Framework and Empirical Test," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 189-212, June.
    46. 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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Schipper, Burkhard C., 2023. "Sex hormones and choice under risk," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    4. Fossen, Frank M. & Neyse, Levent & Johannesson, Magnus & Dreber Almenberg, Anna, 2020. "2D:4D and Self-Employment Using SOEP Data: A Replication Study," IZA Discussion Papers 13180, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Fossen, Frank M. & Neyse, Levent & Johannesson, Magnus & Dreber, Anna, 2022. "2D:4D and Self-Employment: A Preregistered Replication Study in a Large General Population Sample," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 46(1), pages 21-43.
    6. Nicolas Eber & Patrick Roger & Tristan Roger, 2024. "Finance and intelligence: An overview of the literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 503-554, April.
    7. 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).

    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. Schipper, Burkhard C., 2023. "Sex hormones and choice under risk," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Ranoua Bouchouicha & Lachlan Deer & Ashraf Galal Eid & Peter McGee & Daniel Schoch & Hrvoje Stojic & Jolanda Ygosse-Battisti & Ferdinand M. Vieider, 2019. "Gender effects for loss aversion: Yes, no, maybe?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 171-184, October.
    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. Horst Zank, 2010. "On probabilities and loss aversion," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 243-261, March.
    7. 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.
    8. Julius Pahlke & Sebastian Strasser & Ferdinand Vieider, 2015. "Responsibility effects in decision making under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 125-146, October.
    9. Kpegli, Yao Thibaut & Corgnet, Brice & Zylbersztejn, Adam, 2023. "All at once! A comprehensive and tractable semi-parametric method to elicit prospect theory components," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    10. Ferdinand M. Vieider & Peter Martinsson & Pham Khanh Nam & Nghi Truong, 2019. "Risk preferences and development revisited," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(1), pages 1-21, February.
    11. Simon Gächter & Eric J. Johnson & Andreas Herrmann, 2022. "Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 599-624, April.
    12. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Corina Paraschiv, 2007. "Loss Aversion Under Prospect Theory: A Parameter-Free Measurement," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(10), pages 1659-1674, October.
    13. Adam Booij & Bernard Praag & Gijs Kuilen, 2010. "A parametric analysis of prospect theory’s functionals for the general population," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 115-148, February.
    14. Crosetto, P. & Filippin, A., 2017. "Safe options induce gender differences in risk attitudes," Working Papers 2017-05, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    15. Martin Koudstaal & Randolph Sloof & Mirjam van Praag, 2016. "Risk, Uncertainty, and Entrepreneurship: Evidence from a Lab-in-the-Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2897-2915, October.
    16. Alam, Jessica & Georgalos, Konstantinos & Rolls, Harrison, 2022. "Risk preferences, gender effects and Bayesian econometrics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 168-183.
    17. Pau Balart & Lara Ezquerra & Iñigo Hernandez-Arenaz, 2022. "Framing effects on risk-taking behavior: evidence from a field experiment in multiple-choice tests," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1268-1297, September.
    18. David Blake & Edmund Cannon & Douglas Wright, 2021. "Quantifying loss aversion: Evidence from a UK population survey," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(1), pages 27-57, August.
    19. Booij, Adam S. & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2009. "A parameter-free analysis of the utility of money for the general population under prospect theory," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 651-666, August.
    20. 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).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Prospect theory; Prenatal testosterone; Digit ratiio; Risk;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D87 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Neuroeconomics
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making

    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:zbw:espost:222433. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.html .

    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.