This paper reviews the literature on gender differences in economic experiments. In the three main sections, we identify robust differences in risk preferences, social (other-regarding) preferences, and competitive preferences. We also speculate on the source of these differences, as well as on their implications. Our hope is that this article will serve as a resource for those seeking to understand gender differences and to use as a starting point to illuminate the debate on gender-specific outcomes in the labor and goods markets.

/pdf/gender-differences-in-preferences-1wffy691ko.pdf

Gender Differences in Preferences

Theoretical models of financial markets built on the assumption that some investors are overconfident yield one central prediction: overconfident investors will trade too much. We test this prediction by partitioning investors on the basis of a variable that provides a natural proxy for overconfidence--gender. Psychological research has established that men are more prone to overconfidence than women. Thus, models of investor overconfidence predict that men will trade more and perform worse than women. Using account data for over 35,000 households from a large discount brokerage firm, we analyze the common stock investments of men and women from February 1991 through January 1997. Consistent with the predictions of the overconfidence models, we document that men trade 45 percent more than women and earn annual risk-adjusted net returns that are 1.4 percent less than those earned by women. These differences are more pronounced between single men and single women; single men trade 67 percent more than single women and earn annual risk-adjusted net returns that are 2.3 percent less than those earned by single women.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/98110615.pdf?abstractid=139415&rulid=175370&mirid=3

Boys Will Be Boys: Gender, Overconfidence, and Common Stock Investment

Theoretical models predict that overconedent investors trade excessively We test this prediction by partitioning investors on gender Psychological research demonstrates that, in areas such as enance, men are more overconedent than women Thus, theory predicts that men will trade more excessively than women Using account data for over 35,000 households from a large discount brokerage, we analyze the common stock investments of men and women from February 1991 through January 1997 We document that men trade 45 percent more than women Trading reduces men’s net returns by 265 percentage points a year as opposed to 172 percentage points for women It’s not what a man don’t know that makes him a fool, but what he does know that ain’t so Josh Billings, nineteenth century American humorist It is difecult to reconcile the volume of trading observed in equity markets with the trading needs of rational investors Rational investors make periodic contributions and withdrawals from their investment portfolios, rebalance their portfolios, and trade to minimize their taxes Those possessed of superior information may trade speculatively, although rational speculative traders will generally not choose to trade with each other It is unlikely that rational trading needs account for a turnover rate of

/pdf/boys-will-be-boys-gender-overconfidence-and-common-stock-2ctwfizezu.pdf

Boys will be Boys: Gender, Overconfidence, and Common Stock Investment

Economics and Information Theory

Are men more willing to take financial risks than women? The answer to this question has immediate relevance for many economic issues. We assemble the data from 15 sets of experiments with one simple underlying investment game. Most of these experiments were not designed to investigate gender differences and were conducted by different researchers in different countries, with different instructions, durations, payments, subject pools, etc. The fact that all data come from the same basic investment game allows us to test the robustness of the findings. We find a very consistent result that women invest less, and thus appear to be more financially risk averse than men.

Strong Evidence for Gender Differences in Risk Taking

/pdf/are-women-conservative-investors-gender-differences-in-otaon6cduh.pdf

Are Women Conservative Investors? Gender Differences in Participant Directed Pension Investments.

Two Supreme Court decisions concerning the legal definition of discrimination in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit as discriminatory the use of separate mortality tables for men and women in pension benefit calculations. We analyze discriminatory aspects of risk classification and find that the Civil Rights Act has increased discrimination in pension compensation. This article demonstrates both theoretically and by simulation that sex-based risk classification results in less sex discrimination and less individual discrimination than a unisex approach. This result holds for various sex-based classification policies, as well as for various definitions of discrimination and statistics used to quantify those definitions. Of six pension classification policies, the Supreme Court's policy of unisex classification is the most discriminatory.

David D. McCarthy

Papers

Are Women Conservative Investors? Gender Differences in Participant Directed Pension Investments.

Risk Classification and Sex Discrimination in Pension Plans