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. Acker, Daniella & Duck, Nigel W., 2008. "Cross-cultural overconfidence and biased self-attribution," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1815-1824, October.
    2. Gary Smith & Michael Levere & Robert Kurtzman, 2009. "Poker Player Behavior After Big Wins and Big Losses," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(9), pages 1547-1555, September.
    3. Charles T. Clotfelter & Philip J. Cook, 1993. "Notes: The "Gambler's Fallacy" in Lottery Play," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(12), pages 1521-1525, December.
    4. Jolley, Bill & Mizerski, Richard & Olaru, Doina, 2006. "How habit and satisfaction affects player retention for online gambling," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(6), pages 770-777, June.
    5. repec:bla:jfinan:v:53:y:1998:i:6:p:1839-1885 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Powell, Melanie & Ansic, David, 1997. "Gender differences in risk behaviour in financial decision-making: An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 605-628, November.
    7. 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..
    8. 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.
    9. Lucy Ackert & Narat Charupat & Bryan Church & Richard Deaves, 2006. "An experimental examination of the house money effect in a multi-period setting," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(1), pages 5-16, April.
    10. Harrison Hong & Jeffrey D. Kubik & Amit Solomon, 2000. "Security Analysts' Career Concerns and Herding of Earnings Forecasts," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(1), pages 121-144, Spring.
    11. Thaler, Richard, 1980. "Toward a positive theory of consumer choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 39-60, March.
    12. 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.
    13. Peter Brooks & Horst Zank, 2005. "Loss Averse Behavior," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 301-325, December.
    14. Donkers, Bas & Melenberg, Bertrand & Van Soest, Arthur, 2001. "Estimating Risk Attitudes Using Lotteries: A Large Sample Approach," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 165-195, March.
    15. Yu-Jane Liu & Chih-Ling Tsai & Ming-Chun Wang & Ning Zhu, 2010. "Prior Consequences and Subsequent Risk Taking: New Field Evidence from the Taiwan Futures Exchange," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(4), pages 606-620, April.
    16. Meier-Pesti, Katja & Penz, Elfriede, 2008. "Sex or gender? Expanding the sex-based view by introducing masculinity and femininity as predictors of financial risk taking," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 180-196, April.
    17. Richard H. Thaler & Eric J. Johnson, 1990. "Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 643-660, June.
    18. Brad M. Barber & Terrance Odean, 2001. "Boys will be Boys: Gender, Overconfidence, and Common Stock Investment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(1), pages 261-292.
    19. John R. Graham, 1999. "Herding among Investment Newsletters: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 54(1), pages 237-268, February.
    20. Mark S. Seasholes & Ning Zhu, 2010. "Individual Investors and Local Bias," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 65(5), pages 1987-2010, October.
    21. Battalio, Raymond C & Kagel, John H & Jiranyakul, Komain, 1990. "Testing between Alternative Models of Choice under Uncertainty: Some Initial Results," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 25-50, March.
    22. Schmidt, Ulrich & Traub, Stefan, 2002. "An Experimental Test of Loss Aversion," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 233-249, November.
    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Martens, Nikolai & Orzen, Henrik, 2021. "Escalating commitment to a failing course of action — A re-examination," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 137(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. Andrea Lippi & Laura Barbieri & Mariacristina Piva & Werner De Bondt, 2018. "Time-varying risk behavior and prior investment outcomes: Evidence from Italy," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(5), pages 471-483, September.
    2. Hsu, Yuan-Lin & Chow, Edward H., 2013. "The house money effect on investment risk taking: Evidence from Taiwan," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 1102-1115.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:3:p:214-235 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Maximilian Rüdisser & Raphael Flepp & Egon Franck, 2017. "When do reference points update? A field analysis of the effect of prior gains and losses on risk-taking over time," Working Papers 369, University of Zurich, Department of Business Administration (IBW).
    5. Eyal Ert & Ido Erev, 2013. "On the descriptive value of loss aversion in decisions under risk: Six clarifications," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(3), pages 214-235, May.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:5:p:471-483 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Guiso, Luigi & Sodini, Paolo, 2013. "Household Finance: An Emerging Field," Handbook of the Economics of Finance, in: G.M. Constantinides & M. Harris & R. M. Stulz (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Finance, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1397-1532, Elsevier.
    8. Eyal Ert & Ido Erev, 2010. "On the Descriptive Value of Loss Aversion in Decisions under Risk," Harvard Business School Working Papers 10-056, Harvard Business School.
    9. Daniela Beckmann & Lukas Menkhoff, 2008. "Will Women Be Women? Analyzing the Gender Difference among Financial Experts," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 364-384, August.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:2:p:150-160 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. George Wu & Alex B. Markle, 2008. "An Empirical Test of Gain-Loss Separability in Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1322-1335, July.
    12. Itzhak Venezia, 2018. "Lecture Notes in Behavioral Finance," World Scientific Books, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., number 10751, August.
    13. Jiaxi Peng & Danmin Miao & Wei Xiao, 2013. "Why are gainers more risk seeking," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(2), pages 150-160, March.
    14. Darren Duxbury & Robert Hudson & Kevin Keasey & Zhishu Yang & Songyao Yao, 2013. "How prior realized outcomes affect portfolio decisions," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 611-629, November.
    15. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.
    16. Mujcic, Redzo & Powdthavee, Nattavudh, 2022. "How Do Humans Respond to Huge Financial Losses?," IZA Discussion Papers 15536, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Hytönen, Kaisa & Baltussen, Guido & van den Assem, Martijn J. & Klucharev, Vasily & Sanfey, Alan G. & Smidts, Ale, 2014. "Path dependence in risky choice: Affective and deliberative processes in brain and behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PB), pages 566-581.
    18. Schade, Christian & Schroeder, Andreas & Krause, Kai Oliver, 2010. "Coordination after gains and losses: Is prospect theory’s value function predictive for games?," Structural Change in Agriculture/Strukturwandel im Agrarsektor (SiAg) Working Papers 59524, Humboldt University Berlin, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    19. Maria Strydom & Amale Scally & John Watson, 2019. "Impact of mood and gender on individual investors’ reactions to retractions and corrections of earnings forecasts," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(9), pages 941-955, February.
    20. Noman, Abdullah & Naka, Atsuyuki & Zirek, Duygu, 2017. "Examining return predictability of industry style portfolios with prior return relative to a benchmark," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 193-203.
    21. Crosetto, P. & Filippin, A., 2017. "Safe options induce gender differences in risk attitudes," Working Papers 2017-05, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    22. Matsushita, Raul & Baldo, Dinorá & Martin, Bruna & Da Silva, Sergio, 2007. "The biological basis of expected utility anomalies," MPRA Paper 4520, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    23. Flepp, Raphael & Meier, Philippe & Franck, Egon, 2021. "The effect of paper outcomes versus realized outcomes on subsequent risk-taking: Field evidence from casino gambling," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 45-55.

    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.