Risk preferences, gender effects and Bayesian econometrics

被引:8
作者
Alam, Jessica [1 ]
Georgalos, Konstantinos [1 ]
Rolls, Harrison [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Lancaster, Management Sch, Dept Econ, Lancaster LA1 4YX, England
关键词
Gender differences; Risk preferences; Loss aversion; Rank-dependent utility; Prospect theory; Maximum likelihood; Hierarchical Bayesian modelling; EXPECTED UTILITY-THEORY; PROSPECT-THEORY; HETEROGENEITY; FUNCTIONALS; CHOICE; TIME;
D O I
10.1016/j.jebo.2022.08.013
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Gender differences in decision making is a topic that has attracted much attention in the literature and the debate seems to be inconclusive. A method that is often used in the economics literature to account for gender effects is by estimating econometric structural models and testing the significance of the estimated parameters. In this paper we focus on estimations of preference models and we show how omitting to account for behavioural heterogeneity can lead to failures in identifying potential differences. Using data from risky choice experiments, we compare the traditional representative agent Maximum Likelihood Estimation approach against two more flexible inference methods that allow for hetero-geneity at the individual level, the Maximum Simulated Likelihood Estimation, and the Hi-erarchical Bayesian modelling. We show how ignoring heterogeneity may lead to failures capturing gender differences and we suggest the use of Bayesian modelling to effectively estimate the underlying parameters.(c) 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:168 / 183
页数:16
相关论文
共 43 条
[1]   Searching for the Reference Point [J].
Baillon, Aurelien ;
Bleichrodt, Han ;
Spinu, Vitalie .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2020, 66 (01) :93-112
[2]   Parametric preference functionals under risk in the gain domain: A Bayesian analysis [J].
Balcombe, Kelvin ;
Fraser, Iain .
JOURNAL OF RISK AND UNCERTAINTY, 2015, 50 (02) :161-187
[3]  
Bishop C.M., 2006, PATTERN RECOGNITION, DOI [DOI 10.18637/JSS.V017.B05, 10.1117/1.2819119]
[4]   A parametric analysis of prospect theory's functionals for the general population [J].
Booij, Adam S. ;
van Praag, Bernard M. S. ;
van de Kuilen, Gijs .
THEORY AND DECISION, 2010, 68 (1-2) :115-148
[5]   Gender effects for loss aversion: Yes, no, maybe? [J].
Bouchouicha, Ranoua ;
Deer, Lachlan ;
Eid, Ashraf Galal ;
McGee, Peter ;
Schoch, Daniel ;
Stojic, Hrvoje ;
Ygosse-Battisti, Jolanda ;
Vieider, Ferdinand M. .
JOURNAL OF RISK AND UNCERTAINTY, 2019, 59 (02) :171-184
[6]   Loss averse behavior [J].
Brooks, P ;
Zank, H .
JOURNAL OF RISK AND UNCERTAINTY, 2005, 31 (03) :301-325
[7]  
Camerer Colin, 1995, Handbook of experimental economics, V1, P587
[8]   Strong Evidence for Gender Differences in Risk Taking [J].
Charness, Gary ;
Gneezy, Uri .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR & ORGANIZATION, 2012, 83 (01) :50-58
[9]   Mixture models of choice under risk [J].
Conte, Anna ;
Hey, John D. ;
Moffatt, Peter G. .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMETRICS, 2011, 162 (01) :79-88
[10]   Gender Differences in Preferences [J].
Croson, Rachel ;
Gneezy, Uri .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC LITERATURE, 2009, 47 (02) :448-474