Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

A Study of Outcome Reporting Bias Using Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes

Contents:

Author Info

  • Paolo Crosetto
  • Antonio Filippin
  • Janna Heider

Abstract

This paper exploits a large dataset of replications of the Holt and Laury (2002) risk elicitation task to study a possible outcome reporting bias using gender differences in risk attitudes. There is a strong consensus view in the experimental literature according to which women are more prudent than men in risky choices. The evidence collected in the dataset, however, does not support the consensus: only a tiny fraction of the replications displays gender differences. This striking distance between the consensus and the data gathered with this elicitation task allows us to test directly for the presence of outcome reporting bias in the risk and gender literature. We find no evidence that the likelihood of reporting about gender differences is affected by obtaining results in line or against the consensus, also controlling for authors fixed effects. The vast majority of the studies does not report gender results. The only significant determinant of the probability of reporting is the fact that the study focuses directly on the analysis of risk preferences.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.cesifo-group.de/portal/page/portal/DocBase_Content/WP/WP-CESifo_Working_Papers/wp-cesifo-2013/wp-cesifo-2013-11/cesifo1_wp4466.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by CESifo Group Munich in its series CESifo Working Paper Series with number 4466.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: 2013
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_4466

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Poschingerstrasse 5, 81679 Munich
Phone: +49 (89) 9224-0
Fax: +49 (89) 985369
Email:
Web page: http://www.cesifo.de
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: publication bias; gender difference; risk attitude;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. J. Bradford De Long & Kevin Lang, . "Are All Economic Hypotheses False?," J. Bradford De Long's Working Papers _117, University of California at Berkeley, Economics Department.
  2. Chakravarty Sujoy & Harrison Glenn W & Haruvy Ernan E & Rutstrom Elisabet E, . "Are You Risk Averse Over Other People’s Money?," IIMA Working Papers WP2005-08-04, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
  3. Steffen Andersen & Glenn Harrison & Morten Lau & E. Rutström, 2009. "Elicitation using multiple price list formats," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 365-366, September.
  4. Lisa Anderson & Jennifer Mellor, 2009. "Are risk preferences stable? Comparing an experimental measure with a validated survey-based measure," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 137-160, October.
  5. Dohmen Thomas & Falk Armin & Huffman David & Sunde Uwe & Schupp Jürgen & Wagner Gert, 2009. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants and Behavioral Consequences," ROA Research Memorandum 007, Maastricht University, Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market (ROA).
  6. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2008. "Sex and Risk: Experimental Evidence," Development Research Unit Working Paper Series archive-09, Monash University, Department of Economics.
  7. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter & Qin, Ping & Sutter, Matthias, 2009. "Household Decision Making and the Influence of Spouses' Income, Education, and Communist Party Membership: A Field Experiment in Rural China," IZA Discussion Papers 4139, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  8. Ronald J. Baker II & Susan K. Laury & Arlington W. Williams, 2008. "Comparing Small-Group and Individual Behavior in Lottery-Choice Experiments," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 367-382, October.
  9. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-74, June.
  10. Dohmen Thomas & Falk Armin, 2010. "Performance Pay and Multi-dimensional Sorting - Productivity, Preferences and Gender," ROA Research Memorandum 003, Maastricht University, Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market (ROA).
  11. Martina MENON & Federico PERALI, 2009. "Eliciting Risk and Time Preferences in Field Experiments: Are They Related to Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Outcomes? Are Circumstances Important?," Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, Vita e Pensiero, Pubblicazioni dell'Universita' Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, vol. 117(3), pages 593-630.
  12. Houser, Daniel & Schunk, Daniel & Winter, Joachim, 2010. "Distinguishing trust from risk: An anatomy of the investment game," Munich Reprints in Economics 19378, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
  13. Lisa R. Anderson & Beth A. Freeborn, 2008. "Varying the Intensity of Competition in a Multiple Prize Rent Seeking Experiment," Working Papers 75, Department of Economics, College of William and Mary.
  14. Eckel, Catherine C. & Wilson, Rick K., 2004. "Is trust a risky decision?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 447-465, December.
  15. 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.
  16. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri, 2012. "Strong Evidence for Gender Differences in Risk Taking," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 50-58.
  17. Müller, Julia & Schwieren, Christiane, 2011. "Can Personality Explain what is Underlying Women's Unwillingness to Compete?," Working Papers 0511, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
  18. Hristos Doucouliagos & T. D. Stanley, 2009. "Publication Selection Bias in Minimum-Wage Research? A Meta-Regression Analysis," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 47(2), pages 406-428, 06.
  19. Ponti, Giovanni & Carbone, Enrica, 2009. "Positional learning with noise," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 225-241, December.
  20. Masclet, David & Colombier, Nathalie & Denant-Boemont, Laurent & Lohéac, Youenn, 2009. "Group and individual risk preferences: A lottery-choice experiment with self-employed and salaried workers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 470-484, June.
  21. Gneezy, U. & Potters, J.J.M., 1997. "An experiment on risk taking and evaluation periods," Open Access publications from Tilburg University urn:nbn:nl:ui:12-73908, Tilburg University.
  22. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2012. "Estimating risk attitudes in conventional and artefactual lab experiments: The importance of the underlying assumptions," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, Kiel Institute for the World Economy, vol. 6(38), pages 1-15.
  23. Joan Costa‐Font & Marin Gemmill & Gloria Rubert, 2011. "Biases in the healthcare luxury good hypothesis?: a meta‐regression analysis," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 174(1), pages 95-107, January.
  24. Julie R. Agnew & Lisa R. Anderson & Jeffrey R. Gerlach & Lisa R. Szykman, 2008. "Who Chooses Annuities? An Experimental Investigation of the Role of Gender, Framing, and Defaults," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(2), pages 418-22, May.
  25. Chetan Dave & Catherine Eckel & Cathleen Johnson & Christian Rojas, 2010. "Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 219-243, December.
  26. Lisa Anderson & Beth Freeborn, 2010. "Erratum to: Varying the intensity of competition in a multiple prize rent seeking experiment," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 143(1), pages 255-256, April.
  27. Ehmke, Mariah & Lusk, Jayson & Tyner, Wallace, 2010. "Multidimensional tests for economic behavior differences across cultures," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 37-45, January.
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 in new window

Cited by:
  1. Filippin, Antonio & Crosetto, Paolo, 2014. "A Reconsideration of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes," IZA Discussion Papers 8184, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_4466. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Julio Saavedra).

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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