The Gender Differences in Risk-Taking

The risk-taking ability is crucial for personal well-being and business success, as well as for the reduction of global poverty. The current research focuses on the gender and its impact on the decision-making pattern. To test if there is any correlation between the sex and ability to take timely decisions in life-threatening situations in a positive and negative scenario the study involved 40 participants (20 representatives of both sexes) of approximately one age and social status. The respondents were subjected to review the possible risk scenario, make a decision, and answer the survey questions. The results were analysed with SPSS software and showed no significant correlation between genders in the risk-taking simulation. Despite the well-thought experiment design, the results require further investigations and cross-studies due to the limited number of participants.

Introduction

The abilities to take a risk, explore new environment, gain new experience, and make thoughtful choice are crucial for success in everyday life and business affairs. While the United Nations Organization and World Bank set the millennial goals for human development, the issues of risk-taking ability and its development have become hot topics for discussion (UN, 2015). The reason is that one of the millennial goals addresses the reduction of the poverty level (UN, 2015). The ability to make decisions is one of the possible factors to minimize social inequality. Thus, it is reasonable to explore the process of decision-making, define the factors of impact, and clarify if it possible to increase the aforementioned ability of the citizens.

Numerous researches and experiments form the scientific base for further investigations. Among the important factors that can have an effect on personal risk-taking ability is the country of birth, the social group, the methods of parenting, culture (Li, Griffin, Yue, & Zhao, 2013), religion (Noussair, Trautmann, Van de Kuilen, & Vellekoop, 2012), and even the body weight (Dohmen et al, 2011). The scientists analyse the correlation between risk-taking patterns and other factors, like social group, country of birth, religion, and age (Figner & Weber, 2011; Steinberg, 2010). The gender issue could not stay outside of this research and one should investigate if sex defines the way a person makes a decision in a critical situation. The widespread opinion claims that men have better developed risk-taking ability than women do.

The scientists from different countries compared the behavior of men and women in different situations, however, there are some gaps in the scientific base of their studies. The authors usually do not pay attention to the comparative analysis of risk-taking and risk perception (Rhodes & Pivik, 2011; Ertac & Gurdal, 2011). Besides, they usually do not care about the equal status in the participants to exclude the impact of other factors (Ertak & Gurdal, 2012). Thus, one can find some data on this topic, but it is incomplete and requires further unbiased investigations.

There are four main reasons to evaluate the existing body of information as insufficient and incomplete. The first reason to continue the investigation of gender difference in risk-taking is the varying risk perception in men and women. Females tend to perform less risky behavior when they evaluate the situation as a threatening one (Eriksson & Simpson, 2010). As such, one should find a control group for the project to get a valid results.

The second reason is the limited set of factors used in the previous experiments. The scientists mostly focus their researches in the attitude to money and the readiness to invest in high-risk businesses like online casinos (Rodek & Pivik, 2010). However, since the investment decisions are obviously not only possible risk in the life of most people, it is reasonable to explore the behavior under other conditions.

Moreover, some researchers recruited the participants on the base of their gender only, without taking into account other impact factors, like age or social status. Without the exclusion of the additional factors the author cannot claim if the differences in risk-taking are actually due to the gender-based issues only. Thus, to guarantee that a research is valid and reliable, one should design it in details.

And the last but not least, the fourth reason to continue the experiments in this field is the changing society. Nowadays, students grow up in a social environment that is more or less free of gender bias and stereotypes if compared to the past (Gupta, Turban, & Pareek, 2017) The ever-changing nature of social interactions contributes to the development of new behavioral habits in the representatives of both sexes. As such, the researches that were done in the past may not be relevant for the modern world.

Taking into account the facts listed above, one may conclude that the scientific base lacks the experiments with proper design and sampling, adapted to the modern realities. The existing publications mostly claim that women tend to perform less risky behavior in decision making, in particular, when it comes to risky investments. Therefore, it seems reasonable to suppose the gender difference in risk-taking depends on the risk factor and scenario, both positive and negative, when the risk means the saving of human life.

Method

Design

A two-way between subject ANOVA design was used in order to measure the risk-taking scores of the participants. During the experiment, the researcher proposed two different scenarios for each group of respondents. The first scenario (Appendix 1) consisted in helping people with 35% of chance of saving their lives, whereas the second one (Appendix 2) involved a 65% chance that people will die. In both scenarios, the participants were asked if they take a risk of helping and how.

Participants

Participants were 40 healthy, adult students of the same age from The University of Westminster (20 males, 20 females). The respondents were chosen randomly from the faculty of science and technology. The research purpose and ethical considerations were adjusted accordingly.

Materials

The involved materials encompassed two scenarios with different framings. The scenarios were designed to assess the difference between male and females in risk-taking decisions. The question sheets consisted of two different scenarios and a scale (from 0 to 10). No additional measurements were required. The collected data was analyzed with the SPSS software.

Procedure

Researchers made a brief summary of the experimental procedure. Participants were given consent forms before starting the experiment (Appendix 3). Before the start of the experiment, all the potential participants were asked about their attitude to life-saving in the risky circumstances. Only those who agreed this is a threatening station were allowed to take part in the experiment. Two groups of 20 males and 20 females were divided into four groups of ten. Ten females had to answer to scenario 1 (positive) and ten others had to do the second scenario (negative). Same was applied to male respondents. The groups worked separately to exclude the mutual influence and information exchange. Participants were given 5 minutes to complete the task. The SPSS analysis provides the main statistical data on the base of experiment results.

Ethics

The researcher made sure that all BPS Ethical Guidelines were properly followed. Participants were informed about the aim of the study and were asked to give their concern to participate in it. They were also aware that they had the right to carry on with the experiment or to stop at any point.

Results

Two ways between subjects ANOVA was conducted to look at the effects of framing and gender on risk-taking scores. According to the data, there is no significant main effect for gender, F(3,40)=.056, p=.814, and risk-taking F(3,40)=.333, p=.567. There was also no significant interaction between gender and risk-taking F (3,40)= 1,108, p=.300.

As such, the results show no significant correlation between the results in male and female groups. This conclusion is equally true for both positive and negative scenario. The difference for negative scenario is not statistically significant.

Discussion

Starting the discussion of the experiment results, it is important to evaluate the overall quality of the experiment. The case study involved 40 participants, 20 males and 20 females. All of them were healthy and equally interested in the participation. They were of the same age (17-18 years), and all belonged to one social group. Of course, there are some subdivisions in every subgroup, including the students of one school, but in general, the recruits formed the homogeneous group, as such, the sample was of a high quality (Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino, 2016). Besides, before the beginning of the experiment, each participant answered the question about live saving in a risky situation. All the students evaluate such situation as the one with a high risk factor. Sampling the participants with the same perception of the risk also contributes to the validity and reliability of the research outcomes. On the other hand, such an approach gives a room for the further experiments. Upcoming investigations should make sure men and woman have any differences in risk-taking patterns, which is necessary for the analysis of their perception of the risky situations (Rovai, Baker, & Ponton, 2013). In addition, the experiment is free of gender bias. There were no preliminary explanations of the experiment subject, so the participants could not make a decision to follow the gender stereotypes. The scenario of the experiment is absolutely gender-neutral. However, since the researcher aimed to choose the best sample, it lead to a relatively small number of participants who met all required criteria.

Speaking about other researches in this field and the contribution of the current experiment to the overall scientific knowledge, one should mention that many previous researches lacked factual data and provided over-generalized conclusions. The research of Booth and Nolen (2012), for instance, states that there are some gender differences in risk-taking, however, it has no information on the social status and age of the participants. Besides, their experiment covered the field of online gambling and proved that women were more likely to invest real money instead of playing for the game bonuses (Booth & Nolen, 2012). All the data in the frame of this experiment was collected in one online game. In this game, the players could invest real or virtual money. And since according women mostly avoided investing the real money, the validity of the experiment poses questions than answers.

Some relevant research on the decision making patterns is also done in the political investigations. Charness and Gneezy (2012) operate the large volume of data (out of 15 independent experiments) and conclude that the women take less risk in their investment politics, but their study presents no data in relation to other spheres of life and business. Apart from their focus on political decisions, the result of this experiment remain questionable. To conclude the difference is gender-based, it would be reasonable to research their social status and income level, as well as family situation. Besides, the additional research should clarify, if there was risk-taking or risk-perception difference.

Some studies assume that the changes in the behavioral patterns may be related to the physiological differences in men and women. The research by Riedl, Hubert, and Kenning (2010) analyzes the gender differences in online-shopping strategy through the comparison of the brain activity in different sexes. Women behave differently, and the authors of the research notice that they use different parts of the brain than men making the decisions (Riedl, Hubert, & Kenning, 2010). They suppose the roots of the difference in the biology, but at the same time, they highlight that such an assumption needs further research. Thus, the existing researches do not reflect the situation completely.

Returning to the initial aim of this experiment – to understand the mechanisms of the risk-attitude in people and to clarify the training method – it is reasonable to review wider scope of researches. The study of Weber, Weber, and Nosic (2012) tries to answer the question who take a risk and why. In their experiment, they highlight several important factors that impact the decision making behaviors, including age and gender. Their point is that any determinant should be considered in the combination with other factors. However, such an approach brings out even more questions, since the actual number of factors complicates the statistical research. The Swedish researchers, on the other hand, propose to stay away from the traditional determinants like age and gender and base the risk-taking pattern on the “Big Five” of human personality – extraversion, neuroticism, openness, easy-going, and compassionate (Lönnqvist, Verkasalo, Walkowitz, & Wichardtl, 2015). Having analyzed the available literature, one can come to a conclusion that there are too many approaches that lack one unified vision of the problem related to the nature of different risk-taking behaviors. As such, the future task is to understand, which factors have most impact on the decision-making process.

Conclusion

The experiment on the correlation between gender and risk-taking patterns showed no significant differences in men and women regardless of the negative or positive scenario. The quality of the test sample was very high, therefore the outcomes are reliable and can be used for further investigations. However, the sample size of 40 participants is too small for the statistically meaningful result and requires further exploration. To use risk-attitude development as a tool in the struggle with poverty, it is necessary to understand the mechanisms of its work.