جنسی یا جنسیت؟ گسترش دیدگاه مبتنی بر جنسیت معرفی شده توسط مردسالاری و زنانگی بعنوان پیش بینی کننده ریسک پذیری مالی

Women have proven to be more risk-averse than men in investment decisions in many studies. In Western cultures, risk taking is perceived as a masculine characteristic. We therefore hypothesize that the more people associate themselves with masculine attributes, the more financial risks they tend to take, regardless of biological sex. Study 1 showed that differences between men and women in financial risk taking decreased when identification with masculine attributes remained constant. Femininity, on the other hand, was not related to financial risk taking. In the second study, gender priming on masculinity and femininity affected risk taking of the male sample.

It is commonly accepted that demographic (e.g., gender, age, education), socio-economic (e.g., income, profession), and personality aspects (e.g., sensation-seeking, attitudes) influence a person’s level of financial risk taking (Morse, 1998). Past research shows that women tend to be more risk-averse when investing than men (e.g., Bernasek and Shwiff, 2001, Jianakoplos and Bernasek, 1998 and Powell and Ansic, 1997). Observed differences between men and women in financial risk taking were explained with regard to various theories, which may be roughly divided into those providing on the one hand biological, and on the other, social explanations (e.g., Anselmi & Law, 1998). Theories that stress biological reasons label differences between men and women as sex differences and name hormones and genes (Buss, 1989, Buss, 1994 and Saad and Gill, 2000) as an underlying basis for these differences. In contrast, social and psychological theories outline predominantly sex-specific socialization as a reason for the observed behavioral differences between men and women. In order to stress the social and cultural basis of differences, sociological and psychological theories use the term “gender differences” for describing differences between men and women (e.g., Deaux, 1985, Eagly and Steffen, 1984, Unger, 1979 and Unger, 1992). Scientific elaboration on the distinction between sex and gender differences is part of the nature–nurture debate which has a long history in psychology. It is naïve to assume that any differences between men and women can be explained by either biological or social reasons, because both effects interact and can hardly be disentangled (e.g., Anselmi and Law, 1998 and Deaux, 1985). However, there is a difference in the temporal perspective and resistance to change, depending on whether observed differences between men and women are predominantly affected by biological or social factors (see e.g., Buss, 1994 and Daly and Wilson, 1983). To our knowledge, in past studies on gender differences in financial risk taking, authors did not explicitly distinguish between biological sex (female and male) and gender (feminine and masculine). Taking into account femininity and masculinity is crucial, because representations of femininity and masculinity have been tackled by changes in social structures and social roles (Eagly, 2001). Recent research has shown that the difference between men and women in terms of masculinity has decreased (e.g., Auster and Ohm, 2000 and Twenge, 1997). Masculine attributes are no longer restricted solely to men. Women may also display masculine attributes and act in what was traditionally considered a “masculine” way. The purpose of this article is to expand research regarding gender differences in financial risk taking. Financial risk taking by men and women was studied by distinguishing between sex and masculinity/femininity as a result of gender socialization. In the first study we captured actual financial investment behavior with a questionnaire. The second experimental study addressed whether priming gender roles may affect financial risk taking. With the distinction into biological sex and masculinity and femininity as gender roles, it is possible to gain new insights into the understanding of gender differences in financial risk taking.

In both studies, high values on the masculinity scale went along with higher financial risk taking. Identification with the female sex role, on the other hand, seems to be independent of financial risk taking: In our studies, being feminine did not mean being risk-averse, but being masculine supports risk taking. The often found difference between women and men in their tendency to take financial risks seems to be based on different levels of identification with masculine attributes. Distinguishing women and men according to their respective sex roles, biological sex and identification with the respective sex role coincided. Effects of biological sex and sex role stereotypes on risk taking appeared to be interchangeable. In recent years, women have gradually adopted masculine attributes (Auster and Ohm, 2000 and Twenge, 1997). In our second study, women students perceived themselves as being as masculine as our male sample. As a consequence, no sex differences in financial risk taking were found. These findings suggest several implications for financial investment institutions. From a policy perspective, differentiation between biological sex and sex role stereotypes may help in counteracting women’s general risk aversion in investment decisions. Taking into account that, in general, women still earn less money than men, their hesitation to invest in financial markets additionally contributes to the observed differences in the financial power of both sexes. Bajtelsmit and Bernasek, 1996 and Bernasek and Shwiff, 2001 even conclude that female risk aversion in financial decisions is an important cause of higher female exposure to poverty in retirement. As a start, it seems helpful to acknowledge that women’s diversity contradicts simple mass-marketing strategies. The financial service industry is recognizing women’s economic power and therefore women are an interesting target group for marketing activities. This article, however, is one argument for more sensitive market segmentation strategies. Business women, younger, and well-educated women may be more similar to men from similar backgrounds (education, profession) than to other women identifying themselves with the traditional female sex role. Therefore, sex role based market segmentation, in addition to occupation, age, and educational level may improve marketing activities for women, because they better account for the diversity of women’s attributes and needs. Awareness of the fact that not all women are risk averse may further help to overcome self-fulfilling prophecies in personal interactions. So far, female risk preference is underestimated by women and men (Siegrist et al., 2002). As a result, women are offered high-risk assets less often than are men (Bajtelsmit and Bernasek, 1996 and Schubert et al., 1999). In this perspective, situational effects may cause different levels of financial risk taking, regardless of biological sex (Byrnes et al., 1999, Lopes, 1987 and Schubert et al., 1999). Banking and insurance companies may explicitly encourage women with traditional sex roles to invest in higher risk assets by focusing, for example, on individual benefit and success rather than on the benefits for others. By reducing risk aversion this could positively influence the financial well-being of women in the long run. The presented studies are the first step in a series of studies on gender differences in investment behavior. In the second study, we used priming as a method to elicit stereotype congruent behavior. However, priming also influences consumer judgments, behavior, and motivations in the real context (Bargh, 2002). According to the way potential investors are addressed and promotion activities are designed, tendencies toward risk-seeking behavior or risk aversion may be supported (Johar, Moreau, & Schwarz, 2003). Images of masculine attributes and male spokespersons in advertisements, for example, may enforce higher financial risk taking. In addition, recent banking institutes’ reactions to female risk aversion may even backfire on their intentions. There are promotion activities which address women only. Women investors are invited to information evenings which are labeled as “ladies events”. But with the presence of only women, feminine stereotypes may be activated and masculine attributes may be suppressed. Activities aimed at reducing female risk aversion may, on the contrary, strengthen this behavior. At the moment, these effects are rather speculative and may not be directly derived from the presented studies. In future projects we plan to test for interaction effects in real settings. The link between masculinity and financial risk taking seems to be confirmed in the way that masculine attributes enhances people’s tendency to take risks. However, taking financial risks may not be always preferable. Taking risks for the risk itself can have enormous negative consequences on a person’s financial resources. Barber and Odean (2001) speak of the “male syndrome”, referring to the male tendency to be overconfident and to believe strongly in their own judgment of investment options. Men also seem to be overconfident even if they experience high uncertainty or are wrong in their answers. Further research is supposed to shed some light on the question of whether masculinity as an individual characteristic leads to an underestimation of financial risk, whereas femininity supports an overestimation. Thus far, empirical studies have revealed that women are found to be more concerned and more sensitive to risks and express greater concern than men (Barke et al., 1997, Bord and O’Connor, 1997 and Lundeberg et al., 1994). Women were also found to usually feel less informed and doubtful of whether they are capable of judging the consequences of hazards. To our knowledge, the link between masculinity and femininity and risk perceptions has not yet been sufficiently explored and could possibly present an interesting question for future research.