IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v16y2013i7p791-802.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of prior outcomes on gender risk-taking differences

Author

Listed:
  • Desmond Lam
  • Bernadete Ozorio

Abstract

This study proposed that men are more likely to take greater risk after a win ('house money' effect), while women are more likely to take greater risk after a loss ('escalation of commitment' effect). These effects are, however, moderated by prior experiences in risk-taking and role characteristics. Three distinct groups of 30 subjects (total = 90) each were solicited to play an experimental betting game. The subjects were categorized into risk providers (RP), risk customers (RC), and non-risk customers (NRC). RP are represented by casino executives, RC by leisure life-time casino gamblers, and NRC by non-casino gamblers. On average, RC group was found to take most betting risk. Male RCs were more likely to bet more after a win, while female RCs were more likely to bet more after a loss. NRCs, irrespective of gender, were more likely to bet more after a loss. There were no gender risk-taking differences in prior outcomes in the RP group.

Suggested Citation

  • Desmond Lam & Bernadete Ozorio, 2013. "The effect of prior outcomes on gender risk-taking differences," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(7), pages 791-802, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:16:y:2013:i:7:p:791-802
    DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2012.737824
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669877.2012.737824
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669877.2012.737824?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. He, Xin & Mittal, Vikas, 2007. "The effect of decision risk and project stage on escalation of commitment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 103(2), pages 225-237, July.
    2. Helga Fehr-Duda & Manuele Gennaro & Renate Schubert, 2006. "Gender, Financial Risk, and Probability Weights," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 283-313, May.
    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. Deaves, Richard & Kluger, Brian & Miele, Jennifer, 2018. "An exploratory experimental analysis of path-dependent investment behaviors," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 47-65.
    2. Martens, Nikolai & Orzen, Henrik, 2021. "Escalating commitment to a failing course of action — A re-examination," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    3. Fenghua Wen & Zhifang He & Xu Gong & Aiming Liu, 2014. "Investors’ Risk Preference Characteristics Based on Different Reference Point," Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, Hindawi, vol. 2014, pages 1-9, April.
    4. F. T. T. Phua, 2017. "Does the built-environment industry attract risk-taking individuals?," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(4), pages 207-217, April.
    5. Nite, Calvin & Hutchinson, Michael & Bouchet, Adrien, 2019. "Toward an institutional theory of escalation of commitment within sport management: A review and future directions," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 571-583.
    6. Katarzyna Sekścińska & Joanna Rudzinska-Wojciechowska, 2021. "How Power Influences Decision-Makers’ Investment Behavior in the Domains of Loss and Gain," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-13, December.

    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. Sleesman, Dustin J., 2019. "Pushing through the tension while stuck in the mud: Paradox mindset and escalation of commitment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 83-96.
    2. Filiz-Ozbay, Emel & Guryan, Jonathan & Hyndman, Kyle & Kearney, Melissa & Ozbay, Erkut Y., 2015. "Do lottery payments induce savings behavior? Evidence from the lab," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 1-24.
    3. Fellner, Gerlinde & Maciejovsky, Boris, 2007. "Risk attitude and market behavior: Evidence from experimental asset markets," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 338-350, June.
    4. Beatty, Timothy K.M. & Katare, Bhagyashree, 2018. "Low-cost approaches to increasing gym attendance," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 63-76.
    5. Daniel Woods & Mustafa Abdallah & Saurabh Bagchi & Shreyas Sundaram & Timothy Cason, 2022. "Network defense and behavioral biases: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 254-286, February.
    6. Hoon S. Choi & Darrell Carpenter & Myung S. Ko, 2022. "Risk Taking Behaviors Using Public Wi-Fi™," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 965-982, June.
    7. Iñigo Iturbe-Ormaetxe & Giovanni Ponti & Josefa Tomás, 2016. "Myopic Loss Aversion under Ambiguity and Gender Effects," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-11, December.
    8. Syngjoo Choi & Jeongbin Kim & Eungik Lee & Jungmin Lee, 2022. "Probability Weighting and Cognitive Ability," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(7), pages 5201-5215, July.
    9. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda & Adrian Bruhin, 2011. "Viewing the future through a warped lens: Why uncertainty generates hyperbolic discounting," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 169-203, December.
    10. Kiss, Hubert J. & Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael & Rosa-Garcia, Alfonso, 2014. "Do women panic more than men? An experimental study of financial decisions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 40-51.
    11. Adrian Bruhin & Helga Fehr-Duda & Thomas Epper, 2010. "Risk and Rationality: Uncovering Heterogeneity in Probability Distortion," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(4), pages 1375-1412, July.
    12. Chaudhuri, Ananish & Cruickshank, Amy & Sbai, Erwann, 2015. "Gender differences in personnel management: Some experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 20-32.
    13. Andrew E. Clark & Conchita D’Ambrosio & Anthony Lepinteur, 2023. "Marriage as insurance: job protection and job insecurity in France," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 1157-1190, December.
    14. Muhammad Nadeem & Ernest Gyapong & Ammad Ahmed, 2020. "Board gender diversity and environmental, social, and economic value creation: Does family ownership matter?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 1268-1284, March.
    15. Rocco Caferra & Andrea Morone & Piergiuseppe Morone & Paolo Storelli, 2022. "Professional traders’ individual and social preferences under risk: Does group's wealth matter?," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 93(4), pages 1063-1082, December.
    16. Hermano, Víctor & Martín-Cruz, Natalia, 2016. "The role of top management involvement in firms performing projects: A dynamic capabilities approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 3447-3458.
    17. 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).
    18. Jacobsen, Ben & Lee, John B. & Marquering, Wessel & Zhang, Cherry Y., 2014. "Gender differences in optimism and asset allocation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PB), pages 630-651.
    19. Jan B Engelmann & C Monica Capra & Charles Noussair & Gregory S Berns, 2009. "Expert Financial Advice Neurobiologically “Offloads” Financial Decision-Making under Risk," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(3), pages 1-14, March.
    20. Ryan O. Murphy & Robert H.W. ten Brincke, "undated". "Hierarchical maximum likelihood parameter estimation for cumulative prospect theory: Improving the reliability of individual risk parameter estimates," Working Papers ETH-RC-14-005, ETH Zurich, Chair of Systems Design.

    More about this item

    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:taf:jriskr:v:16:y:2013:i:7:p:791-802. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    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.