Accessibility navigation

Gender effects for loss aversion: yes, no, maybe?

Bouchouicha, R., Deer, L., Eid, A. G., McGee, P., Schoch, D., Stojic, H., Ygosse-Battisti, J. and Vieider, F. M. (2019) Gender effects for loss aversion: yes, no, maybe? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 59. pp. 171-184. ISSN 0895-5646

Text (Open Access) - Published Version
· Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
· Please see our End User Agreement before downloading.

[img] Text - Accepted Version
· Restricted to Repository staff only
· The Copyright of this document has not been checked yet. This may affect its availability.


It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

To link to this item DOI: 10.1007/s11166-019-09315-3


Gender effects in risk taking have attracted much attention by economists, and remain debated. Loss aversion—the stylized finding that a given loss carries substantially greater weight than a monetarily equivalent gain—is a fundamental driver of risk aversion. We deploy four definitions of loss aversion commonly used in the literature to investigate gender effects. Even though the definitions only differ in subtle ways, we find women to be more loss averse than men according to one definition, while another definition results in no gender differences, and the remaining two definitions point to women being less loss averse than men. Conceptually, these contradictory effects can be organized by systematic measurement error resulting from model mis-specifications relative to the true underlying decision process.

Item Type:Article
Divisions:Henley Business School > Real Estate and Planning
ID Code:86512


Downloads per month over past year

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Page navigation