Lima de Mi anda, Ka ha ina; De le sen, Lena; Schmid , Ul ich
A icle — Published Ve sion
Can gende di e si y p e en isky choice shi s? The e ec
o gende composi ion on g oup decisions unde isk
Expe imen al Economics
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
Kiel Ins i u e o he Wo ld Economy – Leibniz Cen e o Resea ch on Global Economic Challenges
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Lima de Mi anda, Ka ha ina; De le sen, Lena; Schmid , Ul ich (2025) : Can
gende di e si y p e en isky choice shi s? The e ec o gende composi ion on g oup decisions
unde isk, Expe imen al Economics, ISSN 1573-6938, Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, Camb idge, Iss.
Fi s View, pp. 1-22,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/eec.2024.4
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/330837
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0
Expe imen al Economics (2025), 1–22
doi:10.1017/eec.2024.4
ORIGINAL PAPER
Can gende di e si y p e en isky choice shi s?
The e ec o gende composi ion on g oup decisions
unde isk
Ka ha ina Lima de Mi anda1, Lena De le sen1and Ul ich Schmid 1,2,3
1Kiel Ins i u e o he Wo ld Economy, Uni e si y o Kiel, Kiellinie, Kiel, Ge many
2Depa men o Economics, Uni e si y o Kiel, Kiel, Ge many
3Depa men o Economics and Econome ics, Uni e si y o Johannesbu g, Johannesbu g, Sou h A ica
Co esponding au ho : Lena De le sen; Email: lena.de le sen@i w-kiel.de
(Recei ed 2 Oc obe 2024; accep ed 2 Oc obe 2024)
Abs ac
Ou s udy con ibu es o he li e a u e on choice shi s in g oup decision-making by analyzing how he
le el o isk- aking wi hin a g oup is in luenced by i s gende composi ion. In pa icula , we in es iga e
expe imen ally whe he g oup composi ion a ec s how p e e ences ‘shi ’ when compa ing indi idual and
g oup choices. Consis en wi h hypo heses de i ed om p e ious li e a u e, we show ha male-domina ed
g oups shi owa d iskie decisions in a way ha is no explained by any simple p e e ence agg ega ion
mechanism. We discuss po en ial channels o he obse ed pa e n o choice shi s.
Keywo ds: Expe imen ; gende ; g oup decisions; isk- aking; isky shi
JEL Codes: D71; D81; D91; J16
1. In oduc ion
Many impo an economic and poli ically ele an decisions a e made by g oups, such as boa ds o
di ec o s, supe iso y boa ds, pa liamen s, and o he poli ical bodies, as well as smalle -scale wo k-
ing g oups and eams. Inc easing gende di e si y in hese decision-making bodies, which a e o en
male-domina ed, has been a key poli ical goal. To achie e his, measu es such as gende quo as and
men o ship p og ams (Flo y e al., 2021; Ko oed, 2019) ha e been implemen ed wi h a ying success.
The ocus on gende di e si y has spu ed a g owing body o esea ch examining i s impac on
decision-making. Resea ch in policymaking yields mixed esul s, anging om no impac o quo-
as (Bagues & Campa, 2021; Fe ei a & Gyou ko, 2014) o imp o ed quali ica ions o poli icians
(Bal unai e e al., 2014) and he adop ion o mo e egali a ian policies (Ranehill & Webe , 2022).
S udies o co po a e boa ds simila ly p o ide mixed e idence ega ding he impac o quo as on
i m pe o mance and alua ion (Ahe n & Di ma , 2012; Eckbo e al., 2016; Johansen & Sandnes,
2008; Ma sa & Mille , 2013; Nygaa d, 2011). Howe e , esea ch on gende -di e se managemen eams
inds some e idence o be e pe o mance o mo e di e se eams (Adams & Raguna han, 2015;
Apes eguia e al., 2012; Bansak e al., 2011; Cue a & Rus ichini, 2015; Hoogendoo n e al., 2013).
This pape ocuses on isk- aking, a c ucial aspec o many economic and poli ical decisions.
Risk- aking is, o ins ance, impo an o i m pe o mance (e.g., Gilley e al., 2002; Walls & Dye ,
1996), and he e a e compelling easons o belie e ha gende composi ion signi ican ly a ec s
© The Au ho (s), 2025. Published by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess on behal o Economic Science Associa ion. This is an Open Access a icle,
dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion licence (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0), which pe mi s
un es ic ed e-use, dis ibu ion and ep oduc ion, p o ided he o iginal a icle is p ope ly ci ed.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/eec.2024.4 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
2 Ka ha ina Lima de Mi anda e al.
g oup decisions unde isk. Li e a u e indica es ha women and men di e in economic p e e ences
(see C oson & Gneezy, 2009, o an o e iew). The e exis s abundan e idence ha women a e mo e
isk-a e se han men in inancial isk- aking and many o he domains (By nes e al., 1999; C oson &
Gneezy, 2009), hough he ex en and economic ele ance o his gende di e ence emain deba ed
(Filippin & C ose o, 2016). Howe e , g oup decisions do no always e lec he indi idual p e e ences
o g oup membe s.
A c ucial ye unde explo ed ques ion is how men and women change hei decisions in a g oup
se ing and how gende di e si y in luences hese shi s. This pape in es iga es how he le el o isk-
aking wi hin a g oup is in luenced by i s gende composi ion and how his composi ion a ec s he
shi om indi idual o g oup decisions. Ou s udy con ibu es o he li e a u e on choice shi s
in g oup decision-making by examining how choice shi s a e a ec ed by gende composi ion.
Unde s anding he impac o gende composi ion on g oup decision-making unde isk has impo -
an implica ions o policymake s and o ganiza ions aiming o inc ease gende di e si y and imp o e
decision-making ou comes.
The di e ence be ween indi idual and g oup isk- aking has been ex ensi ely deba ed in social
psychology, da ing back o S one ’s (1961) seminal wo k, and has ecen ly gained a en ion in he eco-
nomics li e a u e. A common pa e n is he pola iza ion o g oup decisions, whe e g oups, on a e age,
end o ake mo e isks han indi iduals, a phenomenon known as he “ isky shi .” Ea ly e idence on
isky shi s was based on s udies employing choice dilemma ques ionnai es. Recen ly, se e al s ud-
ies analyzed g oup decisions unde isk wi h mone a ily incen i ized expe imen s, p oducing mixed
esul s. Some s udies ind e idence o isky shi s (Nieboe , 2015; Su e , 2009), while o he s epo
cau ious shi s, whe e g oups ake less isk han indi iduals (Bake e al., 2008; Mascle e al., 2009;
Shupp & Williams, 2008), o obse e no sys ema ic di e ences (Ha ison e al., 2013). Se e al ea-
sons o hese choice shi s ha e been p oposed, including he con o mi y hypo hesis (Cialdini &
Golds ein, 2004; Jagau & O e man, 2018), he di usion o esponsibili y (Eliaz e al., 2006; Wallach
e al., 1962,1964), and he isk-as- alue hypo hesis (Baue & Tu ne , 1974; Vidma , 1970).1
E idence ha gende plays a signi ican ole in g oup decisions unde isk is p o ided by Nieboe
(2015) and Bogan e al. (2013). Using an in es men ask and an in es men po olio managemen
decision ask, espec i ely, hey ind ha gende is he only indi idual cha ac e is ic ha signi ican ly
a ec s isk- aking in g oup se ings. Mo eo e , hey obse e ha he p esence o men inc eases isk-
aking, al hough he e ec is no linea in he case o Bogan e al. (2013). We add o his li e a u e
by using a simple lo e y choice expe imen and a one-sho decision ask, a oiding po en ial p iming
e ec s ela ed o in es men asks ha can impac isk a i udes (Eckel & G ossman, 2008), as well as
lea ning e ec s o changes in g oup decision-making o e mul iple ounds. In con as o p e ious
s udies ha ely on be ween-subjec compa isons, we use a wi hin-subjec design o di ec ly compa e
indi idual and g oup decision-making unde isk.
Despi e he impo ance o unde s anding choice shi s in g oup decision-making, di ec e idence
o gende ’s ole emains limi ed. Ou s udy di ec ly add esses his gap. Daly and Wilson (2001) o e
indi ec e idence by compa ing indi idual isky decisions made in p i a e wi h hose made in public,
whe e subjec s had o announce hei indi idual choice in on o a g oup o pee s. They ound ha
men ook signi ican ly mo e isk in public han in p i a e, whe eas women showed no such di e ence.
This indi ec e idence sugges s ha male g oup membe s may ake mo e isks and appea mo e isk
ole an in g oup se ings, he eby enhancing he isky shi wi h a highe p opo ion o males in he
g oup.
Fu he indi ec e idence is p o ided by E ac and Gu dal (2012), who ind ha men a e gene -
ally mo e willing o lead g oups. Those men willing o lead also ake mo e isks on he g oup’s behal
han hose no willing o lead. Fo women, hey ind no di e ences. This e idence is unde pinned by
1Fu he de ails on hese heo ies a e p o ided in Sec ion 3.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/eec.2024.4 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
Expe imen al Economics 3
li e a u e ocusing on leade ship. Recen s udies con i m ha women a e less willing o lead, pa icu-
la ly when he leade ’s gende is e ealed o g oup membe s, wi h emale leade s being mos willing
o lead in all- emale g oups (e.g., G ossman e al., 2015; Li e al., 2020). This esul also holds in a
simple isky en i onmen whe e decisions in ol e how much o a ixed endowmen o in es in a
isky asse . When placed in g oups o i e, women a e mo e likely o e use o decide on hei g oup’s
behal (E ac & Gu dal, 2012).
Recen discussions sugges ha hese di e ences a ise because, on a e age, men a e mo e sel -
con iden , mo e likely o un o elec ions, ha e mo e in luence, and a e anked highe han equally
pe o ming women (e.g., Bo n e al., 2022; Chen & House , 2019; Kan hak & Woon, 2015).
In his pape , we analyze he impac o gende composi ion on g oup decisions unde isk and
choice shi s by using a simple lo e y choice expe imen wi h mone a y incen i es. G oups o h ee
wi h a ying gende composi ions we e o med, and hei g oup choices we e compa ed o he indi-
idual choices o he g oup membe s. We a ied whe he he g oup o he indi idual decision was
made i s , and all g oup decisions we e made ace- o- ace.
Ou esul s e eal se e al impo an indings. Fi s , ou esul s show a clea and signi ican impac
o gende composi ion on g oup decision-making. Female-domina ed g oups ake signi ican ly less
isk han male-domina ed g oups. Second, and c ucially, we ind ha gende composi ion plays an
impo an ole in choice shi s. While emale-domina ed g oups show no signi ican shi s, male-
domina ed g oups exhibi subs an ial isky shi s, aking on a e age mo e isk han he a e age and
median p e e ences o g oup membe s would imply. Finally, we discuss po en ial channels o hese
obse ed choice shi s, highligh ing he in luence o male p esence in d i ing he shi owa d iskie
decisions.
The pape is s uc u ed as ollows: Sec ion 2 ou lines he expe imen al design, Sec ion 3 o malizes
ou gende -speci ic hypo hesis mo e p ecisely, and Sec ion 4 p esen s he esul s. The conclusion
ollows in Sec ion 5.
2. Expe imen al design
2.1. Pa icipan s and p ocedu e
The expe imen , in ol ing 492 pa icipan s, was conduc ed in he s uden can een o he Uni e si y
o Kiel, Ge many.2The gende a io was balanced (51.53% women), and he a e age age was 23.24
(SD 4.95). Pa icipan s we e ec ui ed among he can een’s cus ome s o ake pa in an economic
expe imen , which was conduc ed in designa ed quie a eas o he can een. Po en ial pa icipan s
we e old hey would ecei e a €2 pa icipa ion ee and could gain addi ional money by playing a
lo e y.
To disc ee ly con ol he g oup’s gende composi ion, ec ui e s used a sys ema ic app oach.
Pa icipan s we e app oached indi idually and in i ed o pa icipa e wi hou e ealing he gende -
based aspec o he g ouping. As indi iduals ag eed o pa icipa e, hei gende was eco ded,
and ec ui e s acked he equi ed gende balance o each g oup composi ion (FFF, FFM, FMM,
MMM).3To ensu e ha g oup membe s we e un amilia wi h each o he , pa icipan s we e asked i
hey knew anyone p esen be o e g oups we e o med.
The ec ui e s hen o med g oups o h ee people, ensu ing a mix o gende composi ions
acco ding o he expe imen al design. This p ocess allowed he esea che s o con ol he gende
composi ion o each g oup disc ee ly wi hou making i appa en o he pa icipan s ha gende was
2One subjec in ea men GF did no e u n a e he indi idual phase, so mos o he analysis is done o 491 subjec s only.
3In he pos -expe imen su ey in ea men IF, we asked pa icipan s abou he c i e ia hey hough we e used o de e mine
he g oups a e he ea men . The majo i y, ca. 75%, answe ed ha i was by chance. Only 6.5% hough o demog aphic
cha ac e is ics.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/eec.2024.4 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
4 Ka ha ina Lima de Mi anda e al.
Table 1 Gende composi ion o g oups
Nb o g oups Nb o pa icipan s
Gende composi ion T ea men : GF T ea men : IF To al Women Men To al
FFF 22 19 41 123 0 123
MMM 21 16 37 0 110 110
FMM 21 21 42 42 84 126
FFM 21 23 44 88 44 132
O e all 85 79 164 253 238 491
No es: The le side o he able displays he numbe o pa icipa ing g oups in he wo ea men s so ed by hei gende composi ion. The igh
side o he able shows he numbe o women and men who pa icipa ed in he expe imen , so ed by he gende composi ion o hei g oup.
a ac o in hei g ouping.4All o he g oup cha ac e is ics we e andomly alloca ed.5The sample
size was de e mined based on p e ious s udies using he incen i ized Eckel and G ossman (2002)
ask. A me a-analysis by Filippin and C ose o (2016) epo s ha he a e age gende e ec size o
his ask is equal o Cohen’s d =.55 on he indi idual le el.6O e all, da a om 41 pu ely emale
g oups ( u he men ioned as FFF), 44 g oups wi h wo women and one man (FFM), 42 g oups wi h
1 woman and 2 men (FMM), and 37 pu ely male g oups (MMM) we e collec ed; an o e iew is gi en
in Table 1.
A c i ical ea u e o expe imen al designs ha analyze g oup pola iza ion is he o de in which
indi idual and g oup choices a e elici ed. Mos s udies elici ed indi idual p e e ences i s , al hough
some ha e e e sed he o de , each app oach has i s dis inc ad an ages and d awbacks. When pa ic-
ipan s make mul iple e alua ions, ea lie decisions can se e as an ancho , biasing subsequen choices
(A iely e al., 2003). As a esul , ancho ing ends o a o elici ing indi idual p e e ences i s . Recen
esea ch, howe e , sugges s ha indi idual decisions a e also hea ily in luenced by he social con ex ,
pa icula ly gende composi ion. Fo ins ance, Cas illo e al. (2015) le subjec s make indi idual isk-
aking decisions while si ing in a oom wi h o he people. Al hough he decisions a e p i a e and
no e ealed o o he subjec s, he gende composi ion in he oom sys ema ically impac s indi idual
p e e ences. Consequen ly, in he case o g oup decisions, he gende composi ion o he g oup migh
also in luence indi idual isk p e e ences. Howe e , his e ec is a leas educed i subjec s ancho
on he indi idual decision hey made be o e in p i a e, ha is, wi hou any in luence o he social
con ex .
Gi en he signi ican ole o social con ex in decision-making, we implemen ed wo expe imen al
ea men s o a y he o de o he choices: one wi h he g oup decision i s (GF) and he o he wi h
he indi idual decision i s (IF). Consis en wi h p e ious li e a u e on choice shi s, pa icipan s
in he IF ea men we e unawa e o hei g oup’s composi ion when making indi idual choices. We
es ed whe he he o de o decisions sys ema ically a ec ed he g oup and indi idual p e e ences and
ound no signi ican impac s on ei he g oup o indi idual decisions (see Sec ion 4). This suppo s
p e ious wo k by Ha ison e al. (2013), which ound ha he o de o decisions does no in luence
indi idual isk p e e ences.
Fo bo h ea men s, pa icipan s we e app oached as hey we e abou o lea e he can een, min-
imizing he chance hey could sha e in o ma ion wi h o he s who had ye o pa icipa e. While we
4In he IF ea men , we asked pa icipan s a e he ea men abou he c i e ia hey hough we e used o de e mine he
g oups. The majo i y, ca. 75%, answe ed ha i was by chance – only 6.5% hough o demog aphic cha ac e is ics.
5S anda dized di e ences o co a ia es be ween ea men s, gende domina ion in he g oup, and gende , as well as means
and s anda d de ia ions o co a ia es by g oup ypes, can be ound in Tables A1 and A2 in Appendix A.
6Assuming ha he median o e is mo e likely o be emale in emale-domina ed and male in male-domina ed g oups,
we collec ed da a om 85 emale-domina ed and 79 male-domina ed g oups o de ec a medium-sized gende e ec in g oup
choices (wi h β = 0.90, α = 0.05).
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/eec.2024.4 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
Expe imen al Economics 5
canno en i ely exclude his possibili y o in o ma ion exchange, he isk is inhe en in consecu i e
sessions o lab expe imen s as well. Conduc ing he expe imen in a na u al can een se ing, a he
han in a lab, allowed o a mo e ealis ic g oup con ex . Al hough he isk o in o ma ion ansmis-
sion was po en ially g ea e in his en i onmen , we hink i did no bias ou esul s. Fi s , subjec s
we e unawa e ha gende composi ion was cen al o he s udy and could, he e o e, no ansmi his
in o ma ion. Second, e en i some in o ma ion abou he expe imen was sha ed, his would ha e no
sys ema ic impac on he di e ences we obse e ela ed o g oup composi ion.
In he GF ea men , g oups we e o med a he beginning o he expe imen , and i was explained
o he pa icipan s ha hey had o make a isky decision as a g oup i s , hen had o ill ou a ques-
ionnai e on hei own, and in he end, had o euni e in hei ini ial g oup o ecei e hei paymen .
A e he g oups we e o med, a ca d displaying six lo e y op ions was p o ided o hem (see Fig. 1).
Pa icipan s we e old ha he g oup had o choose exac ly one o hese lo e ies by consensus. The e
we e no ime cons ain s o discussion and eaching a consensus and no allback op ion (no g oup
ook longe han i e minu es o each a consensus). When pa icipan s wi hin a g oup ag eed on a
lo e y, hey s a ed hei choice o he expe imen e and we e handed he ques ionnai es, which had o
be illed ou in p i a e. The ques ionnai e included an indi idual isk p e e ence ask (which equaled
he g oup ask wi h all amoun s di ided by h ee), basic demog aphic ques ions (gende , age, highes
educa ional deg ee7), happiness (sel - epo ed happiness on a i e-poin Like scale) and hei le el
o sa is ac ion wi h he g oup choice on a i e-poin Like scale. A e comple ing he ques ionnai es,
pa icipan s euni ed in hei g oups o he payo .
In he IF ea men , pa icipan s i s had o decide on he indi idual isk p e e ences ask in p i-
a e, wi hou being awa e o he g oup composi ion hey we e alloca ed o in he sequel. We had
ou quie places (each o one subjec only) o hese p i a e decisions in di e en co ne s o he
can een, so subjec s could no see ha o he subjec s we e also making a p i a e decision simul ane-
ously. A e he g oup decided, subjec s had o ill ou he indi idual ques ionnai e again in p i a e
and inally euni ed o he payo .
The payo mechanism was he same in bo h ea men s and ook place a he e y end o he
expe imen . To de e mine he payo , a coin was lipped wice. The i s coin lip indica ed whe he he
g oup o he indi idual lo e y choice would be ele an o paymen . The second coin lip de e mined
he ou come – high o low payo – acco ding o he g oup o indi idual choice.
2.2. Me hods
Risk p e e ences. A well-es ablished ask de eloped by Eckel and G ossman (2002) was used o elici
isk p e e ences. The ask is dis ibu ed along a one-dimensional spec um. The g oups had o choose
exac ly one ou o six lo e ies depic ed in Fig. 1 by consensus. The lo e ies we e ep esen ed wi h
coins ha had wo colo ed sides indica ing he size o a gain (in Eu o) – o ange (high gain) and pink
(low gain). Fo all six lo e ies, he chances o win he high o low gain we e equal (50% p obabili y).
The lo e ies inc eased in isk and expec ed alue s a ing om lo e y 1 wi h a su e gain o €12
(o €4 o each g oup membe ) o lo e y 5 wi h an expec ed alue o €15 (€8 o €2 o each g oup
membe ). Lo e y 6 had he same expec ed alue as lo e y 5 bu a highe isk (€9 o €1 o each g oup
membe ) and allowed he de ec ion o isk-lo ing a i udes. The lo e y numbe chosen by he g oup
will be e e ed o as g oup choice (GC) in he sequel. Gene ally, he highe he GC, he lowe he gi en
g oup’s deg ee o isk a e sion. To con ol o indi idual isk p e e ences, he ques ionnai e included
he same lo e y ask bu wi h indi idual gains (i.e., g oup amoun di ided by h ee). Responses o
his ask will be e med indi idual choice (IC). Again, a highe numbe o IC indica es lowe isk
a e sion. The g oup shi is gi en by GC – IC whe e GC – IC >(<0) indica es a isky (cau ious)
shi .
7In he analysis, deg ees we e coded on a scale om 0 o 4, e lec ing 0 – no deg ee, 1 – high school deg ee, 2 – bachelo , 3
– mas e ’s, 4 – PhD.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/eec.2024.4 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
6 Ka ha ina Lima de Mi anda e al.
Fig. 1 Lo e ies o g oup decision-making
No es: The igu e displays he gains o each o he six lo e ies o he expe imen , wi h he o ange side showing he high gain amoun , and
he pink side showing he low gain amoun .
3. Hypo heses
The e is abundan e idence ha women a e mo e isk-a e se han men in inancial isk- aking
(Cha ness & Gneezy, 2012; C oson & Gneezy, 2009), al hough he e ec s a e some imes small and
ask-speci ic (Filippin & C ose o, 2016). Fo he ask employed in he p esen pape , gende di -
e ences we e consis en ly obse ed, such ha we expec o see hem also e lec ed in indi idual
choices.
Hypo hesis 1: IC is highe o men han o women.
In he g oup se ing, we did no p o ide speci ic ins uc ions o subjec s on how o each a g oup
decision, leading o wo po en ial scena ios o how decisions migh be made.
The i s scena io assumes majo i y o ing as he decision p ocess. F om he poli ical econ-
omy li e a u e, i is well-es ablished ha unde ce ain condi ions, in pa icula a one-dimensional
spec um and single-peaked p e e ences, he ou come o majo i y o ing is de e mined by he
median o e (Black, 1948). This has also been suppo ed by expe imen al e idence (Amb us e al.,
2015). Assuming ha women a e gene ally mo e isk-a e se han men, he median o e in emale-
domina ed g oups (FFF and FFM) is mo e likely o be emale, leading o mo e cau ious g oup
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/eec.2024.4 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
Expe imen al Economics 7
decisions. Con e sely, in male-domina ed g oups (FMM and MMM), he median o e is likely o be
male, esul ing in iskie g oup decisions.
The second scena io conside s he possibili y o a leading g oup membe in luencing he g oup’s
decision. Li e a u e sugges s ha women a e less willing o ake on leade ship oles, especially when
he leade ’s gende is e ealed o g oup membe s (G ossmann e al., 2015; Li e al., 2020). Women
a e mos willing o lead in all- emale o emale-majo i y g oups (Bo n e al., 2022). Consequen ly,
he leade is mo e likely o be male, as he numbe o male g oup membe s inc eases, which should,
acco ding o Hypo hesis 1, esul in highe isk- aking o he g oup also in his scena io.
The e o e, based on bo h scena ios, we hypo hesize ha :
Hypo hesis 2: GC inc eases wi h he numbe o male g oup membe s.
The p ima y ocus o his pape is o compa e indi idual and g oup choices. As men ioned, g oup
decisions do no always e lec he indi idual p e e ences o g oup membe s, and se e al explana ions
exis o ha beha io .
The con o mi y hypo hesis s a es ha indi iduals end o align hei p e e ences wi h hose o he
majo i y (Cialdini & Golds ein, 2004; Jagau & O e man, 2018). This con o mi y can a ise om wo
p ima y goals: (1) an accu acy goal, whe e indi iduals adjus hei choices based on he belie ha
he majo i y is mo e likely o be co ec , and (2) an a ilia ion goal, whe e indi iduals con o m o he
g oup o gain social app o al and a oid nega i e judgmen (Asch, 1956; B own, 1965; No dhøy, 1962;
S one , 1968).
In a g oup se ing, his could lead o shi s owa d ei he mo e cau ious o iskie decisions depend-
ing on he majo i y’s p e e ences. Based on Hypo heses 1 and 2, we p edic ha in male-domina ed
g oups, hese majo i y p e e ences would align wi h hose o he male g oup membe s, leading o a
isky shi . Con e sely, in emale-domina ed g oups, he majo i y will e lec he emale membe s’
p e e ences, esul ing in a cau ious shi .
Ano he explana ion o choice shi s is he di usion o esponsibili y in he g oup con ex . When
indi iduals make isky decisions, hey bea he ull esponsibili y o he ou come. Howe e , in he
g oup con ex , he pe cep ion o esponsibili y is di used, and indi iduals may eel less accoun -
able o he inal decision.(Wallach e al., 1962,1964). The educed sense o esponsibili y can make
indi iduals mo e willing o ake isks in he g oup se ing, leading o iskie g oup decisions and
explaining he phenomenon o a isky shi .
While he di usion o esponsibili y has been ini ially used o explain isky shi s, Eliaz e al. (2006)
showed ha he di ec ion o choice shi s depends on he p e ailing social no m wi hin he g oup. I
he social no m is cau ious, he g oup is mo e likely o shi owa d sa e decisions; i he no m a o s
isk- aking, he g oup is mo e likely o shi o iskie choices. We hypo hesize ha he social no m
in male-domina ed g oups is iskie han in emale-domina ed g oups. The e o e, we expec a isky
shi in male-domina ed g oups.
A ela ed heo y is he isk-as- alue hypo hesis, which sugges s ha (mode a e) isk- aking is a
socially app o ed ai (Baue & Tu ne , 1974; Vidma , 1970). Acco ding o his hypo hesis, indi idu-
als who pe cei e hemsel es as mo e isk-a e se han o he s in he g oup may adjus hei p e e ences
o align mo e closely wi h he pe cei ed cul u al no m, which could lead o a gene al isky shi .
Howe e , p e ious s udies wi h designs simila o ou s ha e no obse ed a uni e sal isky shi . Based
on he li e a u e ha sugges s ha isk- aking is a cul u al alue mo e s ongly associa ed wi h men
(e.g., Daly & Wilson, 2001), we hypo hesize ha men pa icula ly change hei indi idual p e e ences
owa d highe isk- aking in g oup con ex s, leading o a isky shi in g oup decision.
Combining hese heo ies, we p opose he ollowing hypo hesis:
Hypo hesis 3: GC – IC is highe in male- han in emale-domina ed g oups
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/eec.2024.4 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
8 Ka ha ina Lima de Mi anda e al.
Fig. 2 A e age g oup choices by g oup ypes
No es: The le igu e displays he a e age g oup choice o emale s. male-domina ed g oups, whe eas he igh igu e displays he a e age
g oup choice wi h espec o he speci ic gende composi ion o he g oups. The g ay whiske s indica e he 95% con idence in e al.
4. Resul s
4.1. Indi idual choice
The a e age indi idual choice IC is 3.48 (SD =1.79). In line wi h Hypo hesis 1, we ind ha men ake
mo e isk (M =3.97, SD =1.74) han women (3.02, SD =1.72). This di e ence is s a is ically sig-
ni ican (Wilcoxon ank sum es : z =5.884, p <.001).8The e a e no signi ican di e ences be ween
he wo ea men s (GF and IF) in e ms o IC (which holds o all subjec s, o women only, and o
men only9).
4.2. G oup choice
The a e age g oup choice is 3.58 (SD =1.73). In he i s s ep, we compa e he a e age g oup deci-
sions be ween male-domina ed and emale-domina ed g oups and be ween g oup ypes, as shown
in Fig. 2.10
8Table A3 in he Appendix s a es he numbe o obse a ions pe lo e y and he equencies. The same is gi en o male-
/ emale-domina ed g oups and all g oup ypes.
9We do no ind any ea men di e ences in e ms o he a e age IC using a Wilcoxon ank sum es o all pa icipan s:
z=1.087, P ob >|z| =.277; o women only: z =.580, P ob >|z| =.562; and o men only z =.851, P ob >|z| =.395.
In addi ion, we do no ind any signi ican ea men di e ences wi hin he ou g oup ypes o all pa icipan s, o women
only and men only, excep he FMM g oup es ing o men only (he e, men in he GF ea men show a highe a e age IC han
in he IF ea men ). Finally, wi hin he espec i e ea men s GF and IF, we do no obse e signi ican di e ences be ween
women’s IC ac oss g oups; he same holds o men.
10Again, we ind no signi ican di e ences be ween he wo ea men s ega ding GC. No ea men di e ences a e ound
o all g oups and g oup ypes sepa a ely. Wilcoxon ank sum es : All g oups: z =−.109, P ob >|z| =.913; FFF: z =−.495,
P ob >|z| =.621; FFM: z =−.418, P ob >|z| =.676; FMM: z =.402, P ob >|z| =.688; MMM: z =.284, P ob >|z| =.776.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/eec.2024.4 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
Expe imen al Economics 15
Fig. 4 Po en ial consensus-making mechanisms
No es: Di e ences be ween obse ed g oup choice and hypo he ical g oup choice acco ding o di e en consensus-making mechanisms
by emale and male-domina ed g oups. A posi i e numbe shows a isky, while a nega i e shows a cau ious shi ela i e o he espec i e
consensus-making mechanism.
4.4.1. Choice shi s ela i e o po en ial consensus-making mechanisms
Nex , we in es iga e choice shi s ela i e o he po en ial consensus-making mechanisms desc ibed
abo e. We examine he di e ences be ween obse ed g oup choices and hypo he ical g oup choices
cons uc ed o each g oup acco ding o di e en consensus-making mechanisms, ha is, GCg−GCc
g,
whe e c={Mean, Median, Min IC, Max IC, Low Majo i y, High Majo i y, Minimum Range Coali ion,
Leade }. Posi i e alues indica e a isky shi ela i e o he po en ial consensus-making mechanism,
while nega i e alues indica e a cau ious shi . Figu e 4 shows ha , o all mechanisms excep he
Leade scheme, choice shi s a e la ge o male-domina ed g oups compa ed o emale-domina ed
g oups. Speci ically, male-domina ed g oups exhibi a la ge isky shi unde he Mean, Median,
Min IC, and Low Majo i y schemes and a smalle cau ious shi unde he Max IC and High Majo i y
schemes. In he Leade scheme, we ind he opposi e – a smalle cau ious shi o emale-domina ed
g oups. Po en ial explana ions o his esul a e discussed in he ollowing subsec ion. On a e age,
he median IC seems o align mos closely wi h he obse ed g oup choices. Ne e heless, a isky shi
o male-domina ed g oups can be obse ed.
Table 6 shows ha , o all consensus-making mechanisms excep he Leade scheme, male-
domina ed g oups consis en ly demons a e a signi ican addi ional isky shi compa ed o emale-
domina ed g oups. In he case o Max IC and High Majo i y Coali ion, male-domina ed g oups
exhibi smalle cau ious shi s. In he Leade scheme, he esul s a e quali a i ely and quan i-
a i ely simila , bu he sample size (N =39) is oo small o de ec a s a is ically signi ican
e ec .
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/eec.2024.4 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
16 Ka ha ina Lima de Mi anda e al.
Table 6 OLS eg essions wi h he di e ence be ween ac ual and hypo he ical g oup choice as dependen a iable (g oup le el)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
GC – a g. IC GC – median IC GC-min IC GC-max IC GC-low. maj. GC-high maj. GC-coali ion GC-leade
Male-domina ed g oups .562** .616*** .919*** .802*** .661*** .571** .676*** .658
(.22) (.22) (.23) (.25) (.22) (.23) (.23) (.62)
Mechanism −.175*−.374*** −.427*** −.545*** −.248*** −.309*** −.362*** −.707***
(.09) (.07) (.08) (.09) (.08) (.09) (.08) (.17)
Cons an 2.385** 2.85*** 3.893*** 3.647*** 2.823*** 2.592** 2.963*** 3.042
(1.06) (1.06) (1.11) (1.21) (1.04) (1.11) (1.1) (2.74)
No. o obs. 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 39
Adj. R2 .04 .141 .182 .204 .078 .077 .106 .274
P ob >chi2/F .052 0 0 0 .004 .005 .001 .007
No es: Reg ession a he g oup le el, s anda d e o s a e gi en in pa en hesis, signi icance le el: *p <.1, **p <.05, ***p <.1.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/eec.2024.4 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
Expe imen al Economics 17
Fig. 5 Simula ed g oup choice acco ding o po en ial consensus-making mechanisms
No es: The igu e shows hypo he ical g oup choices based on simula ed g oups based on he a e age ICs o men and women. The
g een ba s ep esen he ac ual a e age g oup choices obse ed o emale and male-domina ed g oups. The compa ison highligh s ha
male-domina ed g oups end o ha e highe g oup choices han hose p edic ed by any consensus-making mechanisms, whe eas emale-
domina ed g oups end o align wi h o all below hese p edic ions.
To u he ule ou a pu ely mechanical e ec , we simula e hypo he ical g oups based on he a e -
age ICs o men and women. Figu e 5 illus a es his compa ison, showing ha he obse ed a e age
GC in male-domina ed g oups exceeds all consensus-making mechanisms conside ed. In con as ,
o emale-domina ed g oups, he obse ed GC is equal o o below hese mechanisms. This con i ms
ha he e ec ex ends beyond a pu ely mechanical e ec .
4.4.2. Leade
In ea men IF (79 g oups in o al), we included addi ional ques ions o iden i y whe he g oup deci-
sions we e d i en by a single indi idual. Table 7 shows ha g oup leade we e iden i ied in many
g oups, wi h hei occu ence e enly dis ibu ed ac oss g oup ypes. In FMM, mos leade s a e male
(nine men s. wo women), whe eas leade ship is e enly spli be ween men and women in FFM ( i e
men s. i e women).
An impo an ques ion is whe he leade s exhibi di e en isk cha ac e is ics han non-leade s
and whe he hese cha ac e is ics di e be ween male and emale-domina ed g oups. Table 8 shows
ha leade s a e gene ally mo e isk- aking han non-leade s. In male-domina ed g oups, his di e -
ence is ma ginally signi ican o he expe imen ally elici ed isk p e e ence (IC, ow 1) and highly
signi ican o subjec i e isk ole ance ( ow 2). Leade s in male-domina ed g oups also pe cei e
hemsel es as mo e isk ole an ela i e o o he s, ha is, hei subjec i e isk ole ance ela i e o
o he s is, on a e age, highe han o non-leade s in hese g oups ( ow 3). Fo emale-domina ed
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/eec.2024.4 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
18 Ka ha ina Lima de Mi anda e al.
Table 7 Dis ibu ion o leade s ac oss g oup ypes
Gende composi ion
FFF MMM FMM FFM
No leade 9 8 10 13 40
Leade 10 8 11(9/2) 10(5/5) 39
No es: The able shows he numbe o g oups, wi h and wi hou leade s, so ed by g oup gende composi ion.
Table 8 Compa ison o indi idual isk p e e ences and subjec i e isk ole ance be ween leade s and non-leade s
Male-domina ed g oups Di . Female-domina ed
g oups
Di .
Non-leade Leade Non-leade Leade
Indi idual choice (IC) 3.674 4.526 −.852*2.971 3.238 −.267
(1.888) (1.577) (.464) (1.701) (1.998) (.419)
Subjec i e isk ole ance 3.185 2.526 .658*** 2.99 3.238 −.248
(.983) (.697) (.237) (.876) (.944) (.212)
Subjec i e isk ole ance ela i e o o he s 3.154 2.737 .417*3.127 3.143 −.015
(.965) (.933) (.242) (.961) (.854) (.226)
Recommenda ion isk- aking 1.848 1.789 .058 1.683 2.048 −.365***
(.592) (.535) (.147) (.544) (.384) (.125)
No es: Reg essions a he g oup le el, s anda d e o s in pa en hesis, signi icance le el: *p <.1, **p <.5, ***p <.1.
IC ep esen s he indi idual choices in he incen i ized isk expe imen . Subjec i e isk ole ance, subjec i e isk ole ance ela i e o o he s
and ecommenda ion isk- aking a e hypo he ical sel -assessmen s. Highe numbe s indica ed highe isk- aking ( he o iginal ques ions in he
ques ionnai e a e ecoded o allow o an easie in e p e a ion o esul s).
g oups, we do no ind s a is ically signi ican di e ences in isk p e e ences o subjec i e isk ole -
ance be ween leade s and non-leade s.19 Howe e , leade s in emale-domina ed g oups belie e ha
o he s should gene ally ake less isk ( ow 4).
5. Conclusion
The g owing poli ical ocus on gende di e si y has spu ed s udies examining i s economic impac
and he in luence o an inc easing p opo ion o women in decision-making bodies on decision-
making. In his pape , we examine how gende di e si y a ec s g oup decision-making, ocusing on
isk- aking, a key aspec o many economic and poli ical decisions.
Using a simple lo e y choice expe imen wi h mone a y incen i es, we ind ha isk- aking
inc eases as he sha e o male g oup membe s ises, esul ing in g ea e isk- aking in male-
domina ed g oups compa ed o emale-domina ed g oups. The main esul o his pape is gende -
speci ic pola iza ion in g oup decision-making. A clea choice shi pa e n eme ges when we
accoun o he g oup composi ion: male-domina ed g oups exhibi isky shi s, aking mo e isks
han he a e age and median indi idual p e e ences o g oup membe s would sugges . In con as ,
emale-domina ed g oups show no signi ican shi in isk p e e ences.
To be e unde s and he mechanisms behind hese choice shi s, we examined eigh po en ial
consensus-making p ocesses. This app oach allowed us o ule ou he possibili y ha he obse ed
choice shi is due o a mechanical e ec esul ing om he unde lying consensus-making p ocesses.
Ou indings p o ide h ee key insigh s.
Fi s , while he median g oup choice is closes o he ac ual g oup choice, male-domina ed g oups
display an addi ional isky shi compa ed o emale-domina ed g oups.
19These esul s also hold i we only look a emale g oup leade s.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/eec.2024.4 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
Expe imen al Economics 19
Second, he esul s o he majo i y mechanism align wi h heo ies such as he con o mi y and
esponsibili y hypo heses, indica ing ha g oup membe s con o m o he majo i y p e e ences.
Howe e , he majo i y p e e ences di e in male and emale-domina ed g oups, leading o di e en
choice shi s. Speci ically, ou indings suppo he assump ion ha men in male-domina ed g oups
end o adjus hei choices o highe le els o isk when deciding in he g oup con ex .
Thi d, leade s in male and emale-domina ed g oups di e in hei isk p e e ences and subjec i e
isk ole ance. Leade s in male-domina ed g oups a e mo e isk- aking han non-leade s, while we
ind no such di e ence in emale-domina ed g oups. This esul is consis en wi h he indings o
E ac and Gu dal (2012), who show ha men a e gene ally mo e willing o lead g oups and ha
hose who choose o lead end o ake mo e isks on behal o he g oup han hose who a e no .
Fo women, hey ind no di e ences. Addi ionally, we ind ha leade s in emale-domina ed g oups
gene ally ecommend o he s o ake less isk. This esul aligns wi h ou obse a ion o a gene al
end o cau iousness in emale-domina ed g oups. Fu he mo e, i suppo s he indings o Eckel
and G ossman (2002), who show ha women a e s e eo yped as mo e isk-a e se han men and ha
belie s abou gende di e ences a e g ea e han he ac ual gende di e ences in isk a e sion.
While ou e idence is a he clea -cu , i may be sensi i e o he elici a ion me hod. Filippin and
C ose o (2016) showed ha gende di e ences in isk- aking a e pa icula ly p onounced o elici-
a ion me hods in ol ing a sa e op ion, as in ou s udy. Wi hou such an op ion, gende di e ences
a e minimized, which could also educe he e ec o g oup composi ion on decisions. Addi ionally,
he di ec ion o g oup shi s seems o depend on he elici a ion me hod. While we do no obse e
a gene al shi in ou da a, o he s udies wi h mone a y incen i es did. Pai wise choices, elici a ion
o willingness- o-pay, and he Hol -Lau y me hod ha e gene a ed cau ious shi s in p e ious s udies
(Bake e al., 2008; Mascle e al., 2009; Pahlke e al., 2012; Shupp & Williams, 2008). In con as ,
he in es men game o Gneezy and Po e s (1997) has gene a ed isky shi s (Nieboe , 2015; Su e ,
2009). I emains an open ques ion o u u e esea ch o de e mine he impac o gende composi-
ion unde hese al e na i e elici a ion me hods. The beha io o gende -balanced g oups, which was
no conside ed in ou s udy, also wa an s u he in es iga ion.
Ou indings a e impo an in se e al ways. Fi s , we con ibu e o he li e a u e on g oup decision-
making by demons a ing ha he gende composi ion o a g oup impac s decision-making unde
isk. Second, we con ibu e o he li e a u e on choice shi s by showing ha gende is a c ucial
de e minan . The di e ences be ween g oups o a ying gende composi ion migh help explain
he mixed e idence on choice shi s in he li e a u e. Finally, ou esul s ha e impo an implica-
ions o policymake s. The sys ema ic impac o gende composi ion on g oup decision-making
sugges s ha poli ical and i m-le el ac ions o inc ease gende di e si y can be expec ed o change
decision-making unde isk in he g oup con ex .
In ou expe imen al design wi h g oups o h ee pa icipan s, a la ge sha e o women educed
isk- aking in g oups, bu a majo i y o emales was needed o signi ican ly educe he isk- aking
o g oups and p e en isky shi s. Choice shi s can be p oblema ic in se e al ways. In pa icula ,
isky shi s can be expec ed o ha e undesi ed e ec s and po en ially ha m socie y. Risky shi s may
be ega ded as excessi e isk- aking since he isk aken by he g oup exceeds ha o he indi idual
g oup membe s, c ea ing a po en ially undesi ed bias owa d highe isk- aking. Consequen ly, his
could induce decision-making bodies o ake excessi e inancial isk, con ibu e o inancial c ises,
o lead o isky, une hical decisions, esul ing in a mo al decline wi hin companies o ins i u ions
(A ms ong e al., 2004). Howe e , in ce ain con ex s, highe isk- aking is desi able and can lead o
be e ou comes, such as g ea e c ea i i y (Glo e & Sau e , 1977) and inno a ion (Reynolds e al.,
2009). In gene al, g oup pola iza ion in decision-making may no be desi able in a mul i ude o si -
ua ions as i can gi e ise o a de achmen o a g oup om i s’ con ex (den Nieuwenboe & Kap ein,
2008), and bo h excessi e isk- aking and isk a oidance may be ha m ul o an o ganiza ion o he
socie y (Ha jo o & Laksmana, 2018).
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/eec.2024.4 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
20 Ka ha ina Lima de Mi anda e al.
Supplemen a y ma e ial. The supplemen a y ma e ial o his a icle can be ound a h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/eec.2024.4.
Replica ion packages. A eplica ion package o all esul s p esen ed in his pape , including da a and S a a code can be
accessed he e: h ps://os .io/2wp4z/? iew_only= d895c321c564b169 4374338d34b774.
Acknowledgemen s. We would like o hank pa icipan s a ESA in Be lin, he 12 h No dic Con e ence in Go henbu g, he
Annual Mee ing o he Ge man Economic Associa ion, he 20 h Sp ing Mee ing o Young Economis s, and he In e na ional
Mee ing on Expe imen al and Beha io al Social Science o hei help ul commen s. Many hanks also o Julia an Hanxleden
and Ka e yna Uk aine s o hei excellen esea ch assis ance.
Funding s a emen . Financial suppo om he Kiel Ins i u e o he Wo ld Economy is g a e ully acknowledged.
Re e ences
Adams, R. B., & Raguna han, V. (2015). Lehman sis e s. FIRN Resea ch Pape .
Ahe n, K. R., & Di ma , A. K. (2012). The changing o he boa ds: The impac on i m alua ion o manda ed emale boa d
ep esen a ion. The Qua e ly Jou nal o Economics, 127(1), 137–197.
Amb us, A., G eine , B., & Pa hak, P. A. (2015). How indi idual p e e ences a e agg ega ed in g oups: An expe imen al s udy.
Jou nal o Public Economics, 129, 1–13.
Apes eguia, J., Azma , G., & I ibe i, N. (2012). The impac o gende composi ion on eam pe o mance and decision making:
E idence om he ield. Managemen Science, 58(1), 78–93.
A iely, D., Loewens ein, G., & P elec, D. (2003). Cohe en a bi a iness: S able demand cu es wi hou s able p e e ences. The
Qua e ly Jou nal o Economics, 118(1), 73–105.
A ms ong, R. W., Williams, R. J., & Ba e , J. D. (2004). The impac o banali y, isky shi and escala ing commi men on
e hical decision making. Jou nal o Business E hics, 53(4), 365–370.
Asch, S. E. (1956). S udies o independence and con o mi y: I. A mino i y o one agains a unanimous majo i y. Psychological
monog aphs: Gene al and applied, 70(9), 1–70.
Bagues, M., & Campa, P. (2021). Can gende quo as in candida e lis s empowe women? E idence om a eg ession
discon inui y design. Jou nal o Public Economics, 194, 104315.
Bake , R. J., Lau y, S. K., & Williams, A. W. (2008). Compa ing small-g oup and indi idual beha io in lo e y-choice
expe imen s. Sou he n Economic Jou nal, 75(2), 367–382.
Bal unai e, A., Bello, P., Casa ico, A., & P o e a, P. (2014). Gende quo as and he quali y o poli icians. Jou nal o Public
Economics, 118, 62–74.
Bansak, C. A., G aham, M. E., & Zebedee, A. A. (2011). The e ec s o gende composi ion o senio managemen on he
economic allou . Applied Economics Le e s, 18(16), 1603–1607.
Baue , R. H., & Tu ne , J. H. (1974). Be ing beha io in sexually homogeneous and he e ogeneous g oups. Psychological
Repo s, 34(1), 251–258.
Black, D. (1948). On he a ionale o g oup decision-making. Jou nal o Poli ical Economy, 56(1), 23–34.
Bogan, V. L., Jus , D. R., & De , C. S. (2013). Team di e si y and in es men decision-making beha io . Re iew o Beha iou al
Finance, 5(2), 134–152.
Bo n, A., Ranehill, E., & Sandbe g, A. (2022). Gende and willingness o lead: Does he gende composi ion o eams ma e ?
Re iew o Economics and S a is ics, 104(2), 259–275.
B own, R. (1965). Social psychology. New Yo k: F ee P ess o Glencoe.
By nes, J. P., Mille , D. C., & Scha e , W. D. (1999). Gende di e ences in isk aking: A me a-analysis. Psychological Bulle in,
125(3), 367–383.
Cas illo, M., Leo, G., & Pe ie, R. (2015). Room composi ion e ec s on isk aking by gende . Wo king Pape , Geo ge Mason
Uni e si y, Depa men o Economics.
Cha ness, G., & Gneezy, U. (2012). S ong e idence o gende di e ences in isk aking. Jou nal o Economic Beha io &
O ganiza ion, 83(1), 50–58.
Chen, J., & House , D. (2019). When a e women willing o lead? The e ec o eam gende composi ion and gende ed asks.
The Leade ship Qua e ly, 30(6), 101340.
Cialdini, R., & Golds ein, N. (2004). Social in luence: Compliance and con o mi y. Annual Re iew o Psychology, 55(1),
591–621.
C oson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gende di e ences in p e e ences. Jou nal o Economic Li e a u e, 47(2), 448–474.
Cue a, C., & Rus ichini, A. (2015). Is inancial ins abili y male-d i en? Gende and cogni i e skills in expe imen al asse
ma ke s. Jou nal o Economic Beha io & O ganiza ion, 119, 330–344.
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (2001). Risk- aking, in asexual compe i ion, and homicide. Neb aska Symposium on Mo i a ion, 47,
1–36.
Da e, C., Eckel, C. C., Johnson, C. A., & Rojas, C. (2010). Elici ing isk p e e ences: When is simple be e ? Jou nal o Risk and
Unce ain y, 41(3), 219–243.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/eec.2024.4 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
Expe imen al Economics 21
den Nieuwenboe , N. A., & Kap ein, M. (2008). Spi aling down in o co up ion: A dynamic analysis o he social iden i y
p ocesses ha cause co up ion in o ganiza ions o g ow. Jou nal o Business E hics, 83(2), 133–146.
Eckbo, B. E., Nygaa d, K., & Tho bu n, K. S. (2016). How cos ly is o ced gende -balancing o co po a e boa ds? Eu opean
Co po a e Go e nance Ins i u e (ECGI)-Finance Wo king Pape , (463).
Eckel, C. C., & G ossman, P. J. (2002). Sex di e ences and s a is ical s e eo yping in a i udes owa d inancial isk. E olu ion
and Human Beha io , 23(4), 281–295.
Eckel, C. C., & G ossman, P. J. (2008). Men, women and isk a e sion: Expe imen al e idence. Handbook o Expe imen al
Economics Resul s, 1, 1061–1073.
Eliaz, K., Ray, D., & Razin, R. (2006). Choice shi s in g oups: A decision- heo e ic basis. Ame ican Economic Re iew, 96(4),
1321–1332.
E ac, S., & Gu dal, M. Y. (2012). Deciding o decide: Gende , leade ship and isk- aking in g oups. Jou nal o Economic
Beha io & O ganiza ion, 83(1), 24–30.
Fe ei a, F., & Gyou ko, J. (2014). Does gende ma e o poli ical leade ship? The case o US mayo s. Jou nal o Public
Economics, 112, 24–39.
Filippin, A., & C ose o, P. (2016). A econside a ion o gende di e ences in isk a i udes. Managemen Science, 62(11),
3138–3160.
Flo y, J. A., Leibb and , A., Ro , C., & S odda d, O. (2021). Inc easing wo kplace di e si y e idence om a ec ui ing
expe imen a a Fo une 500 Company. Jou nal o Human Resou ces, 56(1), 73–92.
Gilley, K. M., Wal e s, B. A., & Olson, B. J. (2002). Top managemen eam isk aking p opensi ies and i m pe o mance: Di ec
and mode a ing e ec s. Jou nal o Business S a egies, 19(2), 96–114.
Glo e , J. A., & Sau e , F. (1977). Rela ion o ou componen s o c ea i i y o isk- aking p e e ences. Psychological Repo s,
41(1), 227–230.
Gneezy, U., & Po e s, J. (1997). An expe imen on isk aking and e alua ion pe iods. Qua e ly Jou nal o Economics, 112(2),
631–646.
G ossman, P. J., Komai, M., & Jensen, J. E. (2015). Leade ship and gende in g oups: An expe imen . Canadian Jou nal o
Economics/Re ue canadienne d’économique, 48(1), 368–388.
Ha jo o, M., & Laksmana, I. (2018). The impac o co po a e social esponsibili y on isk aking and i m alue. Jou nal o
Business E hics, 151(2), 353–373.
Ha ison, G. W., Lau, M. I., Ru s om, E. E., & Ta azona-Gómez, M. (2013). P e e ences o e social isk. Ox o d Economic
Pape s, 65(1), 25–46.
Hoogendoo n, S., Oos e beek, H., & an P aag, M. (2013). The impac o gende di e si y on he pe o mance o business
eams: e idence om a ield expe imen . Managemen Science, 59(7), 1514–1528.
Jagau, S., & O e man, T. (2018). De aul s, no ma i e ancho s, and he occu ence o isky and cau ious shi s. Jou nal o Risk
and Unce ain y, 56(3), 211–236.
Johansen, M. A., & Sandnes, M. J. (2008). Gende equali y in he boa d oom: The No wegian case o Rosa Pa ks? An e en s udy
[Unpublished mas e ’s hesis]. The No wegian School o Economics.
Kan hak, K., & Woon, J. (2015). Women don’ un? Elec ion a e sion and candida e en y. Ame ican Jou nal o Poli ical Science,
59(3), 595–612.
Ko oed, M. S. (2019). The e ec o same-gende o same- ace ole models on occupa ion choice e idence om andomly
assigned men o s a Wes Poin . Jou nal o Human Resou ces, 54(2), 430–467.
Li, S., Chaudhu i, A., & Sbai, E. 2020. (Un)willing o lead? Men, women and he leade ship gap. Uni e si y o Auckland Wo king
Pape .
Mascle , D., Colombie , N., Denan -Boemon , L., & Lohéac, Y. (2009). G oup and indi idual isk p e e ences: A lo e y-choice
expe imen wi h sel -employed and sala ied wo ke s. Jou nal o Economic Beha io & O ganiza ion, 70(3), 470–484.
Ma sa, D. A., & Mille , A. R. (2013). A emale s yle in co po a e leade ship? E idence om quo as. Ame ican Economic Jou nal:
Applied Economics, 5(3), 136–169.
Nieboe , J. (2015). G oup membe cha ac e is ics and isk aking by consensus. Jou nal o Beha io al and Expe imen al
Economics, 57, 81–88.
No dhøy, F. (1962). G oup in e ac ion in decision-making unde isk [Unpublished mas e hesis]. MIT School o Indus ial
Managemen .
Nygaa d, K. (2011). Fo ced boa d changes: E idence om No way. No wegian School o Economics and Business
Adminis a ion Discussion Pape , (5).
Pahlke, J., S asse , S., & Vieide , F. M. (2012). Risk aking o o he s unde accoun abili y. Economics Le e s, 114(1), 102–105.
Ranehill, E., & Webe , R. A. (2022). Gende p e e ence gaps and o ing o edis ibu ion. Expe imen al Economics, 25(3),
845–875.
Reynolds, D. B., Joseph, J., & She wood, R. (2009). Risky shi e sus cau ious shi : De e mining di e ences in isk aking
be ween p i a e and public managemen decision-making. Jou nal o Business & Economics Resea ch (JBER), 7(1), 63–78
Shupp, R. S., & Williams, A. W. (2008). Risk p e e ence di e en ials o small g oups and indi iduals. Economic Jou nal,
118(525), 258–283.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/eec.2024.4 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
22 Ka ha ina Lima de Mi anda e al.
S one , J. A. F. (1961). A compa ison o indi idual and g oup decisions in ol ing isk [Unpublished mas e ’s hesis].
Massachuse s Ins i u e o Technology.
S one , J. A. F. (1968). Risky and cau ious shi s in g oup decisions. Jou nal o Expe imen al Social Psychology, 4(4), 442–459.
Su e , M. (2009). Indi idual beha io and g oup membe ship: Commen . Ame ican Economic Re iew, 99(5), 2247–2257.
Vidma , N. (1970). G oup composi ion and he isky shi . Jou nal o Expe imen al Social Psychology, 6(2), 153–166.
Wallach, M. A., Kogan, N., & Bem, D. J. (1962). G oup in luence on indi idual isk aking. The Jou nal o Abno mal and Social
Psychology, 65(2), 75–86.
Wallach, M. A., Kogan, N., & Bem, D. J. (1964). Di usion o esponsibili y and le el o isk aking in g oups. The Jou nal o
Abno mal and Social Psychology, 68(3), 263–274.
Walls, M. R., & Dye , J. S. (1996). Risk p opensi y and i m pe o mance: A s udy o he pe oleum explo a ion indus y.
Managemen Science, 42(7), 1004–1021.
Ci e his a icle: Lima de Mi anda, K., De le sen, L., & Schmid , U. (2025). Can gende di e si y p e en isky choice shi s? The
e ec o gende composi ion on g oup decisions unde isk. Expe imen al Economics, 1–22. h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/eec.2024.4
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/eec.2024.4 Published online by Camb idge Uni e si y P ess
