The power of stereotyping and confirmation bias to overwhelm accurate assessment: the case of economics, gender, and risk aversion

References

• Arano, K., Parker, C., & Terry, R. (2010). Gender-based risk aversion and retirement asset allocation. Economic Inquiry, 48, 147–155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Archer, J. (1996). Comparing women and men: What is being compared and why?American Psychologist, 51, 153–154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakan, D. (1955). The general and the aggregate: A methodological distinction. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 5, 211–212.
   Google Scholar
• Bakan, D. (1966). The test of significance in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 66, 423–437.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barber, B. M., & Odean, T. (2001). Boys will be boys: Gender, overconfidence, and common stock investment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 261–292.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnett, R., & Rivers, C. (2004). Same difference: How gender myths are hurting our relationships, our children, and our jobs. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Beckmann, D., & Menkhoff, L. (2008). Will women be women? Analyzing the gender difference among financial experts. Kyklos, 61, 364–384.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernasek, A., & Shwiff, S. (2001). Gender, risk, and retirement. Journal of Economic Issues, 35, 345–356.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blau, F. D., Ferber, M. A., & Winkler, A. E. (2010). The economics of women, men and work. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Booth, A. L., & Nolen, P. (2012). Gender differences in risk behaviour: Does nurture matter?The Economic Journal, 122, F56–F78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borghans, L., Golsteyn, B. H. H., Heckman, J. J., & Meijers, H. (2009). Gender differences in risk aversion and ambiguity aversion. Journal of the European Economic Association, 7, 649–658.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruhin, A., Fehr-Duda, H., & Epper, T. (2010). Risk and rationality: Uncovering heterogeneity in probability distortion. Econometrica, 78, 1375–1412.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burton, R. A. (2008). On being certain: Believing you are right even when you're not. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.
   Google Scholar
• Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 367–383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camerer, C. F., & Loewenstein, G. (Eds.). (2003). Advances in behavioral economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carothers, B. J., & Reis, H. T. (2013). Men and women are from earth: Examining the latent structure of gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 385–407.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carr, P. B., & Steele, C. M. (2010). Stereotype threat affects financial decision making. Psychological Science, 21, 1411–1416.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper, H. M., & Hedges, L. V. (1994). The handbook of research synthesis (Vol. 236). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47, 448–474.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cross, C. P., Copping, L. T., & Campbell, A. (2011). Sex differences in impulsivity: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 97–130.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes' error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York, NY: G.P. Putnam's Sons.
   Google Scholar
• de Goede, M. (2004). Repoliticizing financial risk. Economy and Society, 33, 197–217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deaton, A. (2010). Instruments, randomization, and learning about development. Journal of Economic Literature, 48, 424–455.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2011). Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9, 522–550.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan, O. D., & Duncan, B. (1955). A methodological analysis of segregation indexes. American Sociological Review, 20, 210–217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eagly, A. H. (1995). The science and politics of comparing women and men. American Psychologist, 50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2008). Forecasting risk attitudes: An experimental study using actual and forecast gamble choices. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68(1), 1–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eliot, L. (2009). Pink brain, blue brain: How small differences grow into troublesome gaps: And what we can do about it. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
   Google Scholar
• Eriksson, K., & Simpson, B. (2010). Emotional reactions to losing explain gender differences in entering a risky lottery. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 159–163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eriksson, K. (2012). År kvinnor mindre riskvilliga ån mån? Blog. http://bloggar.tidningencurie.se/kimmoeriksson/ar-kvinnor-mindre-riskvilliga-an-man/.
   Google Scholar
• Fehr-Duda, H., De Gennaro, M., & Schubert, R. (2006). Gender, financial risk, and probability weights. Theory and Decision, 60, 283–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fine, C. (2010). Delusions of gender: How our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
   Google Scholar
• Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1994). Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14, 1101–1108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelman, S. A. (2005). Essentialism in everyday thought. Psychological Science, Agenda, (May), 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer, G. (2007). Gut feelings: The intelligence of the unconcious. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Gneezy, U., Leonard, K. L., & List, J. A. (2009). Gender differences in competition: Evidence from a matrilineal and patriarchal society. Econometrica, 77, 1637–1664.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, C. R., Jenkins, M., & Glaser, D. (2006). Gender differences in risk assessment: Why do women take fewer risks than men?Judgment and Decision Making, 1, 48–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartog, J., Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., & Jonker, N. (2002). Linking measured risk aversion to individual characteristics. Kyklos, 55, 3–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haslanger, S. (2011). Ideology, generics, and common ground. In C.Witt (Ed.), Feminist metaphysics: Explorations in the ontology of sex, gender and the self (pp. 179–208). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. The American Economic Review, 92, 1644–1655.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyde, J. S., & Plant, E. A. (1995). Magnitude of psychological gender differences: Another side to the story. American Psychologist, 50, 159–161.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jordan-Young, R. M. (2010). Brain storm: The flaws in the science of sex differences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Gastil, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (2007). Culture and identity-protective cognition: Explaining the white-male effect in risk perception. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4, 465–505.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 1449–1475.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Khemlani, S., Leslie, S.-J., & Glucksberg, S. (2009). Generics, prevalence, and default inferences. CogSci 2009: 31st annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Khemlani, S., Leslie, S.-J., & Glucksberg, S. (2012). Inferences about members of kinds: The generics hypothesis. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 887–900.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitcher, P. (2011). Science in a democratic society. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
   Google Scholar
• Knutson, K. M., Mah, L., Manly, C. F., & Grafman, J. (2007). Neural correlates of automatic beliefs about gender and race. Human Brain Mapping, 28, 915–930.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kristof, N. D. (2009, February 7). Mistresses of the universe. New York Times.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Leslie, S.-J. (2008). Generics: Cognition and acquisition. Philosophical Review, 117(1), 1–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leslie, S.-J. (in press). The original sin of cognition: Fear, prejudice and generalization. The Journal of Philosophy.
   Google Scholar
• Light, R. J., & Pillemer, D. B. (1984). Summing up: The science of reviewing research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lindquist, G. S., & Säve-Söderbergh, J. (2011). ‘Girls will be girls’, especially among boys: Risk-taking in the ‘daily double’ on Jeopardy. Economics Letters, 112, 158–160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Martell, R. F., Lane, D. M., & Emrich, C. (1996). Male–female differences: A computer simulation. American Psychologist, 51, 157–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meehl, P. E. (1992). Factors and taxa, traits and types, differences of degree and differences in kind. Journal of Personality, 60, 117–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meier-Pesti, K., & Penz, E. (2008). Sex or gender? Expanding the sex-based view by introducing masculinity and femininity as predictors of financial risk taking. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 180–196.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, J. E., & van der Meulen Rodgers, Y. (2008). Economic importance and statistical significance: Guidelines for communicating empirical research. Feminist Economics, 14, 117–149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 16464–16479.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Most, S. B., Verbeck Sorber, A., & Cunningham, J. G. (2007). Auditory Stroop reveals implicit gender associations in adults and children. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 287–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, J. A. (1996). Feminism, objectivity and economics. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, J. A. (2013). Not-so-strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking. UMass Boston Economics Working Paper No. 2013-06.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, J. A. (2014). Are women really more risk-averse than men? A re-analysis of the literature using expanded methods. Journal of Economic Surveys. https://doi.org/doi:10.1111/joes.12069/abstract.
   Google Scholar
• Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220.
   Google Scholar
• Olsen, R. A., & Cox, C. M. (2001). The influence of gender on the perception and response to investment risk: The case of professional investors. The Journal of Psychology and Financial Markets, 2, 29–36.
   Google Scholar
• Pelletier, F. J. (2009). Kinds, things, and stuff: Mass terms and generics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Powell, M., & Ansic, D. (1997). Gender differences in risk behaviour in financial decision-making: An experimental analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18, 605–628.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (2006). Essentializing differences between women and men. Psychological Science, 17, 129–135.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Randall, A. (2009). We already have risk management: Do we really need the precautionary principle?International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 3, 39–74.
   Google Scholar
• Reskin, B. (1993). Sex segregation in the workplace. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 241–270.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ronay, R., & Kim, D.-Y. (2006). Gender differences in explicit and implicit risk attitudes: A socially facilitated phenomenon. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 397–419.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schubert, R., Brown, M., Gysler, M., & Brachinger, H. W. (1999). Financial decision-making: Are women really more risk-averse?American Economic Review, 89, 381–385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1992). The Lindley lecture: objectivity and position. Lawrence: University of Kansas.
   Google Scholar
• Sunden, A. E., & Surette, B. J. (1998). Gender differences in the allocation of assets in retirement savings plans. The American Economic Review, 88, 207–211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanley, T. D., & Doucouliagos, H. (2010). Picture this: A simple graph that reveals much ado about research. Journal of Economic Surveys, 24, 170–191.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taleb, N. N. (2010). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. New York, NY: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Uhlmann, E. L., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). ‘I think it, therefore it's true’: Effects of self-perceived objectivity on hiring discrimination. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104, 207–223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weaver, J. R., Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2013). Intrepid, imprudent, or impetuous?: The effects of gender threats on men's financial decisions. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14, 184–191.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, L., & Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594–604. (1–24 in downloadable document).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, L. E., Huang, J. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2009). The scaffolded mind: Higher mental processes are grounded in early experience of the physical world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 1257–1267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ziliak, S. T., & McCloskey, D. N. (2004). Size matters: The standard error of regressions in the American economic review. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 33, 527–546.
   Google Scholar