IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joepsy/v30y2009i2p136-146.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are people more risk-taking in the presence of the opposite sex?

Author

Listed:
  • McAlvanah, Patrick

Abstract

This paper investigates whether exposure to the opposite sex induces greater risk-taking in both males and females. Experimental subjects evaluated a series of hypothetical monetary gambles before and after viewing pictures of opposite sex faces; control subjects viewed pictures of cars. Both males and females viewing opposite sex photos displayed a significant increase in risk tolerance, whereas the control subjects exhibited no significant change. Surprisingly, the attractiveness of the photo had no effect; subjects viewing photographs of attractive opposite sex persons displayed similar results as those viewing photographs of unattractive people.

Suggested Citation

  • McAlvanah, Patrick, 2009. "Are people more risk-taking in the presence of the opposite sex?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 136-146, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:30:y:2009:i:2:p:136-146
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-4870(08)00096-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. James H. Holcomb & Paul S. Nelson, 1992. "Another Experimental Look at Individual Time Preference," Rationality and Society, , vol. 4(2), pages 199-220, April.
    2. Steffen Andersen & Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2008. "Eliciting Risk and Time Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(3), pages 583-618, May.
    3. Wiseman, David B. & Levin, Irwin P., 1996. "Comparing Risky Decision Making Under Conditions of Real and Hypothetical Consequences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 241-250, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2005. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects: New Data without Order Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 902-912, June.
    6. Matthew Rabin, 2000. "Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1281-1292, September.
    7. Bram Van den Bergh & Siegfried Dewitte & Luk Warlop, 2008. "Bikinis Instigate Generalized Impatience in Intertemporal Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(1), pages 85-97, January.
    8. Robin Cubitt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2001. "Discovered preferences and the experimental evidence of violations of expected utility theory," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(3), pages 385-414.
    9. 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.
    10. 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..
    11. Beattie, Jane & Loomes, Graham, 1997. "The Impact of Incentives upon Risky Choice Experiments," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 155-168, March.
    12. Kuhberger, Anton & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Michael & Perner, Josef, 2002. "Framing decisions: Hypothetical and real," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1162-1175, November.
    13. Camerer, Colin F, 1989. "An Experimental Test of Several Generalized Utility Theories," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 61-104, April.
    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. Bonnier, Evelina & Dreber, Anna & Hederos, Karin & Sandberg, Anna, 2019. "Exposure to half-dressed women and economic behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 393-418.
    2. Carlsson, Fredrik & Kataria, Mitesh & Lampi, Elina, 2024. "Sexual objectification of women in media and the gender wage gap: Does exposure to objectifying pictures lower the reservation wage?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    3. Koellinger, Ph.D. & Block, J.H., 2012. "Attractive Supervisors: How Does the Gender of the Supervisor Influence the Performance of the Supervisees?," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2012-003-STR, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    4. María Amelia Gibbons & Martín Rossi, 2019. "When You Can't Tube... Impact of a Major Youtube Outage on Rapes," Working Papers 133, Universidad de San Andres, Departamento de Economia, revised Apr 2020.
    5. Islam Asadul & Smyth Russell, 2012. "The Economic Returns to Good Looks and Risky Sex in the Bangladesh Commercial Sex Market," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-25, May.
    6. Bonnier, Evelina & Dreber, Anna & Hederos, Karin & Sandberg, Anna, 2018. "Undressed for Success? The Effects of Half-Naked Women on Economic Behavior," Working Paper Series 6/2018, Stockholm University, Swedish Institute for Social Research.
    7. Jahedi, Salar & Deck, Cary & Ariely, Dan, 2017. "Arousal and economic decision making," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 165-189.

    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. 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.
    2. James Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Ulrich Schmidt, 2015. "Paradoxes and mechanisms for choice under risk," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 215-250, June.
    3. Stephen L. Cheung, 2020. "Eliciting utility curvature in time preference," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 493-525, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Peter Brooks & Horst Zank, 2005. "Loss Averse Behavior," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 301-325, December.
    6. Susan K. Laury & Charles A. Holt, 2005. "Further Reflections on Prospect Theory," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2006-23, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    7. Matthew P. Taylor, 2017. "Information Acquisition Under Risky Conditions Across Real And Hypothetical Settings," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(1), pages 352-367, January.
    8. D. A. Peel & Jie Zhang & D. Law, 2008. "The Markowitz model of utility supplemented with a small degree of probability distortion as an explanation of outcomes of Allais experiments over large and small payoffs and gambling on unlikely outc," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 17-26.
    9. Aleksandr Alekseev, 2022. "Give me a challenge or give me a raise," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 170-202, February.
    10. Peter P. Wakker, 2008. "Explaining the characteristics of the power (CRRA) utility family," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(12), pages 1329-1344.
    11. M.A.L.M. van Assen & C.C.P. Snijders, 2010. "The effect of nonlinear utility on behaviour in repeated prisoner’s dilemmas," Rationality and Society, , vol. 22(3), pages 301-332, August.
    12. Nguyen, Quang, 2009. "Do fishermen have different preferences?: Insights from an experimental study and household data," MPRA Paper 16012, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Jiakun Zheng & Ling Zhou, 2025. "Too risky to hedge: An experiment on narrow bracketing," Post-Print hal-05063379, HAL.
    14. Steven R. Beckman & Gregory DeAngelo & W. James Smith & Ning Wang, 2016. "Is social choice gender-neutral? Reference dependence and sexual selection in decisions toward risk and inequality," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 191-211, June.
    15. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.
    16. Peter Wakker & Veronika Köbberling & Christiane Schwieren, 2007. "Prospect-theory’s Diminishing Sensitivity Versus Economics’ Intrinsic Utility of Money: How the Introduction of the Euro can be Used to Disentangle the Two Empirically," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 205-231, November.
    17. Hwang, In Do, 2021. "Prospect theory and insurance demand: Empirical evidence on the role of loss aversion," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:5:p:1290-1313 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. William G. Morrison & Robert J. Oxoby, 2022. "Asset integration and risk‐taking in the laboratory," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 1460-1479, August.
    20. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Estepa-Mohedano, Lorenzo & Jorrat, Diego & Orozco, Victor & Rascón-Ramírez, Ericka, 2021. "To pay or not to pay: Measuring risk preferences in lab and field," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(5), pages 1290-1313, September.
    21. Andrea Hackethal & Michael Kirchler & Christine Laudenbach & Michael Razen & Annika Weber, 2020. "On the role of monetary incentives in risk preference elicitation experiments," Working Papers 2020-29, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.

    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:joepsy:v:30:y:2009:i:2:p:136-146. 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/joep .

    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.