Intrepid, Imprudent, or Impetuous?: The Effects of Gender Threats on Men's Financial Decisions Weaver, J. R., Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2012)

A critique by Charlie French, Ben Longbottom, James Mackenzie, Tom Randon

The Financial Crisis of 2007-08 A multitude of contributing factors have been suggested,

including risk A major cause was subprime lending, which included huge

risks1. Market doing well, subprime lending occurred2. Subprime loans were collateralised with higher rated debt

(collateralised debt obligations – CDOs)3. Packaged CDO loans sold to other banks4. House prices fell, causing bank liabilities to increase5. Fall of market caused trading reluctances from banks6. Government stepped in

Background to the study Risk’s role in the financial crisis and who took these risks Wall Street’s hyper-masculine culture (Martin, 2009) Testosterone levels have been linked with risk (Coates &

Herbert, 2008) Men are less risk averse than women (Jianakoplos &

Bernasek, 1998) Men take more risks and discount future rewards in male-

male environments (Griskevicius et al., 2012)

Overview Investigated the role of masculinity in the financial crisis Two experiments focused on challenging male masculinity

and how they reacted in financial decision situations Both experiments found significant effects

First experiment explored the prediction that risk taking becomes more attractive under the threat of manhood (Prentice & Carranza, 2002)

Second experiment explored the prediction that men seek imminent rewards to prevent anxiety from manhood threats (Vandello et al., 2008)

Experiment 1 Experiment served as a test of two competing hypotheses Hypothesis 1: Men who perform the gender threat condition

will take greater financial risks (i.e. place higher bets), as a way of compensation

Hypothesis 2: Gender affirmation men might take greater risks as they may have assimilation effects

38 students, all heterosexual males Two groups:

Group 1: Gender Threatening – testing a fruit scented hand lotion in a pink bottle.

Group 2: Gender affirmation task - testing a power drill

Experiment 1 Method The participants then played a gambling game, with a die

and had to bet on whether it would show an odd or even number. (2/1 odds)

Game was repeated 5 times All given $5. Could place bets of $0, $0.25, $0.5, $0.75 or $1 The experiment was videoed to give an audience effect

Experiment 1 Results

Average bet Average no. of max bets

They found evidence to support hypothesis 1 Men whose gender was threatened (hand lotion) placed

higher bets in each individual round compared to the men whose gender was affirmed (power drill) 29% more money as an average

The threat manipulation had its strongest effects on earlier bets and was attenuated by the last bet

Hypothesis 2 was rejected

Experiment 1 Results

Experiment 1 Critique Insufficient sample size and demographic No true control No female comparison offered, so gender threats might not

just apply to men Women in positions of power take as many risks as men

(Johnson & Powell, 1994)

Between subjects design Individual differences in risk taking

Experiment 1 Critique Audience simulation via a video camera The study is a simulation and does not consider real life data.

Wong & Caducci (1991) tested real life examples, hence possibly conducting a study of greater validity?

Gambling risk results vs. day-to-day risk results in reaffirming masculinity Shortfalls in the generalization of findings

Experiment 2

Examined the effect of gender threats on men’s motivation to seek immediate over delayed rewards, and whether this motivation is increased when in a public context.

The final sample consisted of 73 heterosexual men. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 43 years old.

(median = 20). The design was a 2 x 2 between subjects design.

Experiment 2 Method

To manipulate gender threat, men were asked to recall either 10 specific behaviours (gender threat condition) or 2 specific behaviours (gender affirmation condition) from the past month that demonstrated them as a “real man”. This was an adaptation of a procedure developed by Schwarz et

al. (1991).

Experiment 2 Method In the second half of the experiment, participants completed

a financial decision questionnaire. 7 items to measure participants’ preference for immediate,

smaller financial payoffs versus delayed, but larger financial pay- offs.

Smaller sum of money tomorrow, or a larger sum of money in 90 days. Modified from Griskevicius, Tybur, Delton, and Robertson (2011).

Half of the participants were told they would be videotaped after the questionnaire and have to explain their choices.

Other half thought that no one would see their responses.

Experiment 2 Results

Men who listed 10 “real man” behaviors (M = 6.36, SD = 2.17) rated the listing task as more difficult than men who listed two “real man” behaviors (M = 4.35, SD = 2.28), F(1, 71) = 14.92, p < .001, d = .90.

In addition, men who listed 10 behaviors reported feeling significantly less masculine (M = 6.42, SD = 1.54) compared to men who listed two behaviors (M = 7.01, SD = 0.88), F(1, 71) = 4.10, p = .047, d = .47.

Experiment 2 Results

Experiment 2 Critique Better sample size and choice of experimental design. Insufficient demographic (median age = 20). University student sample unlikely to be an accurate

representation of a population.

General Critique

States it is only investigating the causes of the US financial crisis but the financial crisis was worldwide.

Ethnic background of participants taken into account but not financial background.

Experiment 1 Age range = 18 to 40, median age = 19

Experiment 2 Age range = 18 to 43, median age = 20 Deery (1999)- young people more likely to underestimate

risk.Differences between the two experiments

methods.

Wording used by experimenters.The study has low ecological validity.Although the principal has validity and the rationale

is backed up well with literature, is it really relevant?

Lack of control groups.No female participants.

General Critique continued…

References Critique 56 total references. Year that references where published range from 1972 to

2012. 28 references where published in the 2000’s and 21 in the

1990’s. Journal with most references is Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology. Not only Psychological journals used.

On occasions, the authors make statements without using references to back them up, e.g. “the crisis was at least partially caused by a series of ill-advised gambles” and “When their manhood status is perceived to be threatened, men become motivated to take restorative actions.”

Authors sometimes use multiple references to back up statements, which is good, but do not explain studies referenced.

Evidence to support the study Manhood requires continual proof (Bosson & Vandello, 2011) Evolutionary view towards threatening manhood (Wilson &

Daly, 2005) People in high positions of power have lower EQ (Galinsky,

Gruenfeld & Magee, 2003) ‘The London Whale’ case study

Evidence opposing the study Higher cortisol levels cause an increase in risk taking (van

den Bos, 2009) Tenuous links to the financial crisis

Incorrect pricing of risk in the run up to the financial crisis (Simkovic, 2009)

When did the ‘threatening of manhood’ occur? Banks became more risk averse when they ran into trouble Trading works both ways, where there in someone losing,

someone is benefitting

Future research and implications of the study

This study shows that manhood can be threatened and bigger risks will be taken when manhood is threatened.

Fewer men in the same workplace. May want to carry out the study including women. Scope for exploring the genetic basis of risk takers.(Dreber

et al, 2009)

References Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: an investigation of

adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(2), 163-75.

Bosson, J. K., & Vandello, J. A. (2011). Precarious manhood and its links to action and aggression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 82–86.

Coates, J. M., & Herbert, J. (2008). Endogenous steroids and financial risk taking on a London trading floor. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 6167–6172.

Deery, H. (1999). Hazard and Risk Perception among Young Novice Drivers. Journal of Safety Research, 30 (4), 225-236.

Dreber, A., Apicella, C. L., Eisenberg, D. T., Garcia, J. R., Zamore, R. S., Lum, J. K., & Campbell, B. (2009). The 7R polymorphism in the dopamine receptor D4 gene (DRD4) is associated with financial risk taking in men. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30(2), 85-92.

Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., Magee, J. C. (2003). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 453-466.

Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Ackerman, J. M., Delton, A. W., Robertson, T. E., & White, A. E. (2012). The financial consequences of too many men: Sex ratio effects on saving, borrowing, and spending. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 69–80.

Jianakoplos, N. A., & Bernasek, A. (1998). Are women more risk averse? Economic Inquiry, 36, 620–630.

Johnson, J. E., & Powell, P. L. (1994). Decision making, risk and gender: are managers different? British Journal of Management, 5(2), 123-138.

Martin, C. E. (2009, June 27). Was the economic meltdown a crisis of masculinity run amuck? It’s time for women to step in. Alternet. Retrieved November 26, 2013, from http://www.alternet.org/

References NCRW (2009). Women in fund management: A road map for achieving critical mass–

And why it matters. New York: NCRW. Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women should be, shouldn’t be, are

allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 269–281.

Simkovic, M. (2009). Secret Liens and the Financial Crisis of 2008. American Bankruptcy Law Journal, 83, 253.

van den Bos, R., Harteveld, M., & Stoop, H. (2009). Stress and decision making in humans: Performance is related to cortisol reactivity, albeit differently in men and women. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 34, 1449-1458.

Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M., & Weaver, J. R. (2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1325–1339.

Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (2005). Carpe diem: Adaptation and devaluing the future. Quarterly Review of Biology, 80, 55–60.

Wolf, W. C., & Fligstein, N. D. (1979). Sex and authority in the workplace: The causes of sexual inequality. American Sociological Review, 44(2), 235-252.

Wong, A., & Carducci, B. J. (1991). Sensation seeking and financial risk taking in everyday money matters. Journal of Business and Psychology, 5(4), 525-530.