Gender Congruent Contexts and
Counter-stereotypical Exemplars:
Women as Risk Takers
Sreedhari D. Desai (UNC)
Heidi Liu (Harvard Univ.)
Hannah Riley Bowles (Harvard Univ.)
Gender Differences in Risk-taking
“Risk taking is an
attribute of the
masculine
psychology”
(Wilson & Daly, 1985)
“Our results clearly
support the idea that
male participants are
more likely to take
risks than female
participants”
(Brynes, Miller, &
Schafer,1999)
“The robust finding is
that men are more riskprone than women”
(Croson & Gneezy, 2009)
Gender Differences in Risk-taking
Reproductive
perspective
(Wang, Kruger, & Wilke, 2009;
Harris & Jenkins, 2006;
Frankenhuis et al., 2010;
Baker & Maner, 2008)
Gender Differences in Risk-taking
• Evolutionary/
reproductive perspective
(Wang, Kruger, & Wilke, 2009; Harris &
Jenkins, 2006; Frankenhuis et al., 2010;
Baker & Maner, 2008)
• Societal and cultural
norms
(Cialdini, 1988; Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004;
Eagly & Wood, 2013)
Spotlight on Gender Differences…
Men are more risk
taking in
– Physical skills
(Byrnes et al., 1999)
– Outdoor activities
But no differences or
even reversals in
– Social skills
(Harris, Jenkins & Glaser, 2006;
Johnson, Wilke & Weber, 2004)
(Howland et al., 1996)
– Financial decisionmaking
(Croson & Gneezy, 2009)
– Dangerous and
prosocial heroism
(Eagly & Wood, 2003)
The Role of Context
The Role of Context
• Question frames
(McCullough, 2004; Bear & Babcock,
2014)
• Ethnic identity
(Shih, Pittinsky, & Ambady, 1999)
• Professional identity
(Kray et al., 2001; Bowles et al.,
2005)
Hypotheses
H1: Women will be less risk averse in more feminine – as
compared to masculine – decision contexts.
H2a: Exposure to counterstereotypical female role models will reduce
women’s risk aversion in masculine-stereotypic decision contexts.
H2b: The predicted effect of exposure to counterstereotypical role
models on women’s risk aversion will be stronger the greater the
potential for personal identification with the role model.
H2c: The predicted effect of exposure to counterstereotypical female
role models on women’s risk aversion will be explained by support for
counterstereotypical (i.e., more masculine) roles for women.
Study 1
Work Conference
Organizing
Family Vacation
Organizing
Risk Manipulation
Study 1
You are organizing a weeklong summer conference
[vacation] and are considering two locations. The first
location, location K, is absolutely perfect in all regards as
long as the weather is nice. Unfortunately, the weather is
hard to predict and there is a 30% chance that the
weather will be bad for most of the conference [vacation].
The second location, location L, is not all that great but is
acceptable and the weather is almost always good.
Which location would you pick?
Study 1: Results
Study 2
Investment
Shopping
Shopping (feminine)
There is a 1 out of 3 chance that Store A will have on
sale the item that you need such that it will cost only $21
with the discount. However, if they don’t have a sale, you
will be forced to rent the clothing item from that store for
$120. Store B certainly has the item you need and they
will charge you $90 for it. Remember, you are in a time
crunch and can go to only one store to rent the clothing
item. The time and distance to the stores are identical.
Which store will you go to?
Study 2: Results
*
Study 3: Product Choice
Risky Product
Candy [Power] bar “Q”
Reviewer 1
This was the YUCKIEST candy [power] bar ever! Whoever
created thse ?
Reviewer 2
These Indian candy [power] bars are just BURSTING with
Flavor! They are simply great!
Neutral Product
Candy [Power] bar “R”
Reviewer 1
Just another candy [power] bar. If you like candy [power] bars, you’ll
likely find them okay.
Reviewer 2
I thought that since these were Indian candy [power] bars, they
might be different from other candy [power] bars I have had. But no,
nothing different or new here.
Study 3: Product Choice
***
Are Women Less Risk Averse in More
Feminine Contexts?
Study 4: A Real World Example of
Stereotype-specific Risk Aversion
• Game shows and risk
aversion
(Gertner, 1993; Metrick, 1995; Post et
al., 2008)
• Game shows and
gender
(Larkin & Pines, 2003; Lindquist &
Saeve-Soederbergh, 2011; Hogarth
et al., 2011)
The Jeopardy Dataset
• First-round Daily Doubles, 2001-2013 (N=1,188)
• Criterion variable: Bid-value ratio (Freiss, 2014)
• Predictor variables: Contestant gender (57% male)
Category gender
• Control variables:
Correct answer, winnings,
gender of competitors
Category Gender
• Four research
assistants (including 2
former Jeopardy!
contestants)
(Brownlow, Whitener & Rubert, 1998;
Berinsky and Levine, 2012)
Examples of Masculine / Feminine
Categories
Study 4: Some Observations
• Men were marginally more
likely to give correct answers
(66% vs. 61%)
• As such, they were also likely
to have higher endowments
($2696 vs. $2474)
• However, contestants did not
appear to select into gendercongruent categories
Study 4: Results
Study 4: Jeopardy
• Reduced bidding in
counterstereotypical
settings, controlling for
ability
• Participants selfselected and prepared
for the show
My Role Model in Engineering School
Prof. Uma Batra,
Dept. of
Metallurgical
Engineering, P.E.C.
Might Role Models Mitigate Risk Aversion?
• Stereotype Inoculation
Model: Role models are
social vaccines that
inoculate against
stereotypes
(Dasgupta, 2011)
• Evidence in the lab and
in political psychology
(Latu et al., 2013; Beaman et al.,
2012; Marx & Roman, 2002)
Might Role Models Mitigate Risk Aversion?
• But not all role models
are optimal
• Elitist role models
– Negative self esteem
(Rudman & Phelan, 2010; ParksStamm et al., 2008)
– Dissimilarity
(Asgari et al., 2012; Hoyt &
Simon, 2011)
Ms. Indra Nooyi
CEO of PepsiCo.
Hypotheses
H1: Women will be more risk averse in more masculine – as compared to
feminine – decision contexts.
H2a: Exposure to counterstereotypical female role models
will reduce women’s risk aversion in masculine-stereotypic
decision contexts.
H2b: The predicted effect of exposure to
counterstereotypical role models on women’s risk aversion
will be stronger the greater the personal identification with
the role model.
H2c: The predicted effect of exposure to counterstereotypical female role
models on women’s risk aversion will be explained by support for
counterstereotypical (i.e., more masculine) roles for women.
Study 5: Might Role Models Mitigate Risk
Aversion?
• Participants read about
a profile
• Did filler tasks
• Then they chose
between assets with
different risk levels ($)
Study 5: Might role models mitigate risk
aversion?
Scenario
High-ID, Low-CS
Bakery Worker
When the girls were two years old,
she made a decision and along with
her friend who had prior experience
working in a boulangerie (bread shop)
applied for a part-time job in a tiny,
struggling local bakery…
Marjorie now became a full-time
employee. In 1995, she cut back on
her work and became a part-time
worker again. In 1997, Marjorie quit
her bakery job altogether.
High-ID, High-CS
Business Manager
When the girls were two years old,
she made a risky decision and
partnering with her friend who had
prior experience running a
boulangerie (bread shop) purchased
a tiny, struggling local bakery…
Marjorie explained how grateful she
was to have succeeded as a business
manager and how taking calculated
risks helped her.
Low-ID, High-CS
Business Executive
In 1997, Marjorie was named CEO of
Pearson, a $3.5 billion international
media conglomerate based in
London, which owns 50% of The
Economist.
Marjorie has been extremely
successful in all her business
endeavors and attributes it to taking
calculated risks.
Risk-Taking Activity
On your behalf, the experimenter has invested 100
cents in a penny stock called Zeltra Investments. As it
turns out, Zeltra Investments is sure to lose 90 cents
by the end of the study. You have an option to switch
your 100 cents to another investment called Barda
Investments. There is a 1 out of 3 chance that if you
switch to Barda Investments, you will lose only 21
cents. However, there is a 2 out of 3 chance that on
switching to Barda you will lose all 100 cents.
Study 5: Might Role Models Mitigate Risk
Aversion?
Hypotheses
H1: Women will be more risk averse in more masculine – as compared to
feminine – decision contexts.
H2a: Exposure to counterstereotypical female role models will reduce women’s
risk aversion in masculine-stereotypic decision contexts.
H2b: The predicted effect of exposure to counterstereotypical role models on
women’s risk aversion will be stronger the greater the potential for personal
identification with the role model.
H2c: The predicted effect of exposure to counterstereotypical
female role models on women’s risk aversion will be explained by
support for counterstereotypical (i.e., more masculine) roles for
women.
Gender Role Expectations as the Mediator
Study 6: A Real World Example of
Mitigating Risk Aversion
• Survey data from an
Indian IT firm
• Pairs of supervisors
and subordinates
answered surveys,
including questions
about risk-seeking on
the job
Measures
• DOSPERT (Weber, Blais, & Betz, 2002) (α = .81)
– “I sometimes openly disagree with my colleagues”
– “I would consider moving to a new city for my job”
– “I thrive in unpredictable work situations”
• Gender-role expectations (Bem, 1974) (α = .89)
– “Women are willing to take risks”
– “Women are self-reliant”
• Job performance (Williams & Anderson, 1991)
– “Adequately completes assigned duties”
– “Meets formal performance requirements of the job”
• Job satisfaction (Judge et al., 1994)
– “How satisfied are you with your job?”
– Percent of happy, neutral, and unhappy time at job
Study 6: Results
Mitigating timidity:
Context matters – but role models can
inoculate against risk aversion
• Risk taking, especially
among women, depends
on the gender stereotype
of the decision-making
context
• But the presence of
relatable role models may
help to increase
calculated risk-taking
Future directions: Counter-stereotypical
Penalties
• Are people penalized for engaging
in counterstereotypical behavior?
(Glick, Zion & Nelson, 1998; Eagly & Karau,
2002; Rudman & Fairchild, 2004; Brescoll,
Dawson, & Uhlmann, 2010)
• Early evidence that perceived
counterstereotypical behavior is
associated with higher ratings of
risk and poor judgment
• Joint vs. Individual Problem
Evaluation
Questions?