IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v47y2013i3p1793-1801.html

Gender differences in macroeconomic expectations: evidence from Turkey

Author

Listed:
  • Atilla Cifter

  • Dilek Teker

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine how men and women’s expectations differ about macroeconomic outlook. We examine whether there exist similarities or differences in men and women’s macroeconomic expectations. For this paper, 365 of Turkey’s leading business economists, strategists, portfolio managers and industry managers participated in a survey titled “Economic Expectations in Turkey for 2010.” The survey investigates gender differences in regards to four macroeconomic expectations; namely, inflation, unemployment, growth and exports. The survey participants are first classified according to their gender, and then their economic perceptions are analyzed. Initially, Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistics are implemented to test normality of data. Then, the Chi-square test of independence is used to compare macroeconomic expectations of men and women. The empirical findings show that macroeconomic expectations of males and females are not statistically different for inflation, unemployment, and exports. On the other hand, macroeconomic expectations of males and females are statistically different only for economic growth at a 10% level. The results indicate that gender is not one of the main determinants for macroeconomic expectations. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Atilla Cifter & Dilek Teker, 2013. "Gender differences in macroeconomic expectations: evidence from Turkey," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 1793-1801, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:47:y:2013:i:3:p:1793-1801
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-011-9626-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11135-011-9626-7
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-011-9626-7?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gary Charness & Uri Gneezy, 2010. "Portfolio Choice And Risk Attitudes: An Experiment," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 48(1), pages 133-146, January.
    2. Christopher D Carroll, 2001. "The Epidemiology of Macroeconomic Expectations," Economics Working Paper Archive 462, The Johns Hopkins University,Department of Economics.
    3. Stanley M. Atkinson & Samantha Boyce Baird & Melissa B. Frye, 2003. "Do Female Mutual Fund Managers Manage Differently?," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 26(1), pages 1-18, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Giuseppe Attanasi & Ylenia Curci & Patrick Llerena & Maria del Pino Ramos-Sosa & Adriana Carolina Pinate & Giulia Urso, 2019. "Looking at Creativity from East to West: Risk Taking and Intrinsic Motivation in Socially and Culturally Diverse Countries," Working Papers of BETA 2019-38, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    2. Blanka Škrabić Perić & Petar Sorić, 2018. "A Note on the “Economic Policy Uncertainty Index”," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 137(2), pages 505-526, June.
    3. Castro, Luciano de & Galvao, Antonio F. & Kim, Jeong Yeol & Montes-Rojas, Gabriel & Olmo, Jose, 2022. "Experiments on portfolio selection: A comparison between quantile preferences and expected utility decision models," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    4. Schmidt Tobias & Sieber Susann, 2017. "The Influence of an Up-Front Experiment on Respondents’ Recording Behaviour in Payment Diaries: Evidence from Germany," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(2), pages 427-454, June.
    5. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin, 2013. "The “bomb” risk elicitation task," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 31-65, August.
    6. Thomas Hellmann & Ilona Mostipan & Nir Vulkan, 2019. "Be Careful What You Ask For: Fundraising Strategies in Equity Crowdfunding," NBER Working Papers 26275, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    8. Konstantinos Georgalos, 2016. "Dynamic decision making under ambiguity," Working Papers 112111041, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    9. Antonio Filippin & Paolo Crosetto, 2016. "Click‘n’Roll: No Evidence of Illusion of Control," De Economist, Springer, vol. 164(3), pages 281-295, September.
    10. Charness, Gary B & VILLEVAL, MARIE-CLAIRE, 2008. "Cooperation and Competition in Intergenerational Experiments in," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt210035w2, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
    11. Robert Akerlof & Hongyi Li & Jonathan Yeo, 2022. "Ruling the Roost: The Vicious Circle and the Emergence of Pecking Order," Discussion Papers 2023-03, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    12. Jean-Charles Bricongne & Baptiste Meunier & Raquel Caldeira, 2024. "Should Central Banks Care About Text Mining? A Literature Review," Working papers 950, Banque de France.
    13. Schmidt, Ulrich & Friedl, Andreas & Lima de Miranda, Katharina, 2015. "Social comparison and gender differences in risk taking," Kiel Working Papers 2011, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
    14. David Castillo‐Merino & Josep Garcia‐Blandon, 2025. "The Influence of Gender Discrimination and Gender Equality on Corporate Tax Aggressiveness," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 5956-5977, September.
    15. Raziiakhan Abdieva & Burulcha Sulaimanova & Kamalbek Karymshakov, 2019. "Gender differences, risk attitude and entrepreneurship in Kyrgyzstan," Economics and Business Letters, Oviedo University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 17-30.
    16. Iturbe-Ormaetxe, Iñigo & Ponti, Giovanni & Tomás, Josefa, 2019. "Is it myopia or loss aversion? A study on investment game experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 36-40.
    17. Liu, Han & Ackert, Lucy F. & Chang, Fang & Qi, Li & Shi, Yaojiang, 2021. "Social division, trust, and reciprocity among Chinese inmates," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 259-273.
    18. Ndoye Niane, Aifa Fatimata & Burger, Kees, 2012. "Gender and Experimental Measurement of Producers Risk Attitude Towards Output Market Price and its Effects on Economic Performance," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126928, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Randolph Sloof & Ferdinand A. Siemens, 2017. "Illusion of control and the pursuit of authority," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(3), pages 556-573, September.
    20. Alaa Mansour Zalata & Collins Ntim & Ahmed Aboud & Ernest Gyapong, 2019. "Female CEOs and Core Earnings Quality: New Evidence on the Ethics Versus Risk-Aversion Puzzle," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 515-534, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:spr:qualqt:v:47:y:2013:i:3:p:1793-1801. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.