|
|
Post by nicolegreenbaum on Apr 26, 2016 3:30:11 GMT
In a world where gambling is a multi-billion dollar business and people sky dive for pleasure, it is clear that human beings collectively are sometimes attracted to risk, and that some are more susceptible to its attraction than others. The assumption of risk aversion has played a central role in economic theory, however, it is part of human nature to be attracted to risk. This risk-seeking behavior can be seen in the convexity of the value of losses. Across many real-world domains, men engage in more risky behaviors than do women. The following study was performed to determine whether the genders differ in their evaluations of (1) the likelihood of potential negative outcomes and (2) their appraisals of the severity of these potential outcomes. Relative to women, men reported a greater overall likelihood of engaging in risky behaviors in the gambling, health, and recreational domains. In all three domains, women rated potential negative consequences as more likely to occur and they rated the potential negative consequences as significantly more severe in two of these domains (gambling and health). The genders also significantly differed in their ratings of the enjoyment of engaging in risky behavior in all three domains, with men rating the scenarios as more enjoyable. This article claims that men are "twice as likely to take risks at work as women". However this article claims that "Men and women are nearly equal risk-takers: 77.4% of women are ready to work in startups, vs. 82.3% of men". QuestionsDo you think our risk behavior is genetic? Is it more practical to be a risk seeker or to have risk aversion? Do risk attitudes change with age? Works Cited Harris, Christine, and Michael Jenkins-Guarnieri. "Why Do Men Take More Risks than Women?" Judgment and Decision Making 1.1 (2006): 48-63. Web. 25 Apr. 2016. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by stacyli on Apr 26, 2016 17:11:39 GMT
Although I do think that risky behavior is most likely a genetic factor, I do think it can also be learned. But even when it is learned, it seems that it is more likely that more men rather than women want to be seen as a risk taker. Media tends to portray successful people, such as big time CEO's, crime-stopping superheros, or just generally strong independent individuals as men. Movies, television, news, even social media generally point to men as being more rewarded for their risks. (Examples: The Social Network, Silicon Valley, Captain America/Iron Man/Thor/why isn't there a Black Widow movie yet GDI) All of these tend to feature men as being the strong, independent intellectuals capable of taking large risks for large rewards and creating huge changes, whereas females are rarely seen at the forefront of these ideas.
From this we can see that men and women are just typically characterized differently. Women are thought to be softer and more caring in nurture, while men are seen as more aggressive and confrontational. But do these stereotypes create individuals who do or don't partake in risky behavior or is it the people who already do or don't take risks that create these stereotypes? Chicken and egg kind of situation I suppose ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ... Nonetheless, this doesn't imply that no risk-taking women exist because they are definitely out there and outrageously underrepresented. Ideas of strong, independent women just need to become more generally acceptable to people in society and I think it will become more likely that women will begin to risk take just as much as men are thought to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by rebeccah on Apr 26, 2016 20:55:05 GMT
I agree that risky behavior is genetic. I think a lot of risky behavior is determined by past experiences, though. For example, if someone took a risk in the past, it seems a lot more likely that they will take risks in the future. Conversely, if a risk they took in the past didn't turn out in their favor, they will likely not be as risky in the future. So in a sense, risky behavior starts as genetic, but can definitely depend on the environment of that individual. Further, risk seems to change with age. Teenagers are especially prone to risky behavior. These are the years that many individuals will partake in their most risky behaviors (breaking the law, speeding, sexual promiscuity, etc.). Once people begin to get older, the risk taking generally slows down. For example, you don't often see an 80 year old going 100 mph down the highway. This is possibly because the older you get, the more risk outcomes you have seen.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicolegreenbaum on Apr 26, 2016 21:49:16 GMT
Although I do think that risky behavior is most likely a genetic factor, I do think it can also be learned. But even when it is learned, it seems that it is more likely that more men rather than women want to be seen as a risk taker. Media tends to portray successful people, such as big time CEO's, crime-stopping superheros, or just generally strong independent individuals as men. Movies, television, news, even social media generally point to men as being more rewarded for their risks. (Examples: The Social Network, Silicon Valley, C aptain America/Iron Man/Thor/why isn't there a Black Widow movie yet GDI) All of these tend to feature men as being the strong, independent intellectuals capable of taking large risks for large rewards and creating huge changes, whereas females are rarely seen at the forefront of these ideas. From this we can see that men and women are just typically characterized differently. Women are thought to be softer and more caring in nurture, while men are seen as more aggressive and confrontational. But do these stereotypes create individuals who do or don't partake in risky behavior or is it the people who already do or don't take risks that create these stereotypes? Chicken and egg kind of situation I suppose ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ... Nonetheless, this doesn't imply that no risk-taking women exist because they are definitely out there and outrageously underrepresented. Ideas of strong, independent women just need to become more generally acceptable to people in society and I think it will become more likely that women will begin to risk take just as much as men are thought to do. Stacy, I completely agree with you. I think throughout our history, stereotypes have been established of men as risk-takers and women as more cautious and less likely to take risks. Perhaps, this is an evolutionary effect because early men had to take risks to fulfill their role as hunter-gatherer to provide food for the family, while a woman's cautious approach helped hold their families together. However, in today's society there are plenty of women who take risks. In fact, according to this article by PR web, "Men and women are nearly equal risk-takers: 77.4% of women are ready to work in startups, vs. 82.3% of men". |
|
paola
New Member
Posts: 34 
|
Post by paola on Apr 27, 2016 1:05:23 GMT
This thread brings up some really interesting points. I never really thought about gender differences in the context of risk-taking. Although, I have heard that men are generally more risk-taking than women, who are known to be more risk-averse. When I think about such a difference , I think about an evolutionary explanation. During the age of the “Hunters and Gatherers”, men - the hunters - had to take many risks in order to provide their families with food. Women, on the other hand, stayed at home to take care of the children and the house itself - a job that certainly involved less risk-taking. I read an article published by the Harvard Business Review which includes results of multiple studies regarding this discrepancy. One of the results suggests a biological explanation. There are gender differences in brain activity when it comes to taking risks and taking action when faced with a risk; when faced with stress, men generally perform riskier behavior, whereas women perform more cautious behavior. The article concludes with a very important point: society needs a balance of risk types in order to function optimally. After all, a homogenous pool of sole risk-takers would involve careless actions, eventually leading to negative outcomes. Similarly, a homogenous pool of cautious individuals would result in minimal - if not, no progress. Both risk-types are needed in order to make well-calculated decisions that would lead to the most profitable yet secure outcomes. |
|
|
|
Post by dchang on Apr 27, 2016 2:27:06 GMT
I do believe that risk-seeking is mostly a genetic trait. Instead of saying that women are genetically built to avoid risks more than men, I think that it would be better to say that specific personality traits that are more apparent in women tend to make women avoid risks more. Personality traits such as the desire for stability is generally more prevalent in women than in men; this trait may be a reason for why women tend to avoid risks more than men. I also believe that the desire to engage in risky activities also comes with experience/can be sth one acquires. It may be the result of having too peaceful/dull of a life, thus wanting to look for more thrilling activities to counterbalance the dullness. Thus, I would say that risk attitudes definitely can change with age.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicolegreenbaum on Apr 27, 2016 6:44:43 GMT
This thread brings up some really interesting points. I never really thought about gender differences in the context of risk-taking. Although, I have heard that men are generally more risk-taking than women, who are known to be more risk-averse. When I think about such a difference , I think about an evolutionary explanation. During the age of the “Hunters and Gatherers”, men - the hunters - had to take many risks in order to provide their families with food. Women, on the other hand, stayed at home to take care of the children and the house itself - a job that certainly involved less risk-taking. I read an article published by the Harvard Business Review which includes results of multiple studies regarding this discrepancy. One of the results suggests a biological explanation. There are gender differences in brain activity when it comes to taking risks and taking action when faced with a risk; when faced with stress, men generally perform riskier behavior, whereas women perform more cautious behavior. The article concludes with a very important point: society needs a balance of risk types in order to function optimally. After all, a homogenous pool of sole risk-takers would involve careless actions, eventually leading to negative outcomes. Similarly, a homogenous pool of cautious individuals would result in minimal - if not, no progress. Both risk-types are needed in order to make well-calculated decisions that would lead to the most profitable yet secure outcomes. Thanks for your response, Paola. I also find the gender differences in the context of risk-taking very intriguing. In this experiment, the results showed that women invest less, and thus appear to be more financially risk averse than men. Women hold a greater share of their assets in lower-risk investments than men. This week in my Economics class I learned that riskier assets pay a higher return, on average,
to compensate for the extra risk of holding them; thus, while greater risk aversion can help investors avoid unnecessary risks and losses from short-term gambling in the stock markets, women who concentrate their investments in lower-risk assets risk falling short of their retirement and other long-term financial goals. How do you think a balance of risk-types in society can be achieved? Is it possible for such a balance to exist? |
|
|
|
Post by elipshutz on Apr 28, 2016 3:36:31 GMT
I think race is partially a genetic trait, but also media exaggerates this to an extent. First of all in movies with gambling, men are always portrayed as the gamblers and the women as the distraction, or in worse case scenarios, the prize. But this is not just a modern day occurrence. In old time films there was the idea of the damsel in distress. How a female has to be saved by the heroic male figure. In order for the male to save her, he often has to partake in a risky act. Take for example a girl being tied down to train tracks. It is the male in this case that has to expose himself and risk being hit by the train in order to save the girl. Also with fairytales, the princess is seen as dainty and petite while the male is seen as strong and masculine. It is the male that is saving the princess and through this becomes prince charming worthy for her love. In old time fairy tales princesses are romanticized because of their looks and their voice, not their actions. I think how girls and boys were seen in media made it seem as though their certain gender roles either involved risk taking or not.
However, today I think there is more of an emphasis on both the male and the female being heroic in a sense, and therefore being forced to take risks. Take for example the movie Tangled. The main character takes the risk of coming down from the tower in order to save herself. She does not let the male protagonist save her while she just stands by idly and watches. Also with the movie Frozen the two main characters are both female. This further enables the idea that not only are women capable of taking risks, but a man is not necessary at all to save them or partake in precarious behavior. Certainly with gender stereotypes girls are viewed as refraining from this form of danger. But, with the progressive notion in todays world, there is the idea that girls are capable of just as much as boys. I think as this idea starts getting broadcasted to the public through media, it will also start to come out in every day life.
|
|
|
|
Post by elipshutz on Apr 28, 2016 3:36:50 GMT
I think race is partially a genetic trait, but also media exaggerates this to an extent. First of all in movies with gambling, men are always portrayed as the gamblers and the women as the distraction, or in worse case scenarios, the prize. But this is not just a modern day occurrence. In old time films there was the idea of the damsel in distress. How a female has to be saved by the heroic male figure. In order for the male to save her, he often has to partake in a risky act. Take for example a girl being tied down to train tracks. It is the male in this case that has to expose himself and risk being hit by the train in order to save the girl. Also with fairytales, the princess is seen as dainty and petite while the male is seen as strong and masculine. It is the male that is saving the princess and through this becomes prince charming worthy for her love. In old time fairy tales princesses are romanticized because of their looks and their voice, not their actions. I think how girls and boys were seen in media made it seem as though their certain gender roles either involved risk taking or not.
However, today I think there is more of an emphasis on both the male and the female being heroic in a sense, and therefore being forced to take risks. Take for example the movie Tangled. The main character takes the risk of coming down from the tower in order to save herself. She does not let the male protagonist save her while she just stands by idly and watches. Also with the movie Frozen the two main characters are both female. This further enables the idea that not only are women capable of taking risks, but a man is not necessary at all to save them or partake in precarious behavior. Certainly with gender stereotypes girls are viewed as refraining from this form of danger. But, with the progressive notion in todays world, there is the idea that girls are capable of just as much as boys. I think as this idea starts getting broadcasted to the public through media, it will also start to come out in every day life.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicolegreenbaum on Apr 28, 2016 23:25:00 GMT
If anyone is interested in the genetics of risk-taking I just found this from Psychology Today: "Comparisons of identical and fraternal twins in which both siblings were raised in the same families show that sensation-seeking is about 60% genetic. That is a high degree of heritability for a personality trait; most range from 30% to 50%." |
|
