IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v38y2014i5p995-1014..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Lehman Sisters hypothesis

Author

Listed:
  • Irene van Staveren

Abstract

This article explores the Lehman Sisters hypothesis. It reviews empirical literature about gender differences in behavioural, experimental and neuro-economics as well as in other fields of behavioural research. It discusses gender differences along three dimensions of financial behaviour: risk aversion and response to uncertainty, ethics and moral attitudes, and leadership. The article argues that gender stereotypes are influential in finance, constraining women to achieve top positions in banking and sustaining a strong masculine culture. At the same time the analysis indicates that the few women who make it to the top tend to perform on average better than men, in particular under uncertainty. This is explained by a combination of gender beliefs, gender stereotypes, gender identity and flexible biological processes. Although further research is necessary, the existing empirical literature would support a plea for having more rather than fewer women in financial trade, risk management and at the top of the financial sector.

Suggested Citation

  • Irene van Staveren, 2014. "The Lehman Sisters hypothesis," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 38(5), pages 995-1014.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:38:y:2014:i:5:p:995-1014.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/beu010
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. C. Eisenegger & M. Naef & R. Snozzi & M. Heinrichs & E. Fehr, 2010. "Prejudice and truth about the effect of testosterone on human bargaining behaviour," Nature, Nature, vol. 463(7279), pages 356-359, January.
    2. repec:zbw:bofrdp:2012_026 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Irene van Staveren, 2013. "Caring Finance Practices," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(2), pages 419-426.
    4. Alison L. Booth & Patrick Nolen, 2012. "Gender differences in risk behaviour: does nurture matter?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 122(558), pages 56-78, February.
    5. Cotton, Christopher & McIntyre, Frank & Price, Joseph, 2013. "Gender differences in repeated competition: Evidence from school math contests," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 52-66.
    6. Veronica Guerrieri & Peter Kondor, 2012. "Fund Managers, Career Concerns, and Asset Price Volatility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 1986-2017, August.
    7. van der Wijst,Nico, 2013. "Finance," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107029224, January.
    8. Barasinska, Nataliya & Schäfer, Dorothea, 2013. "Is the willingness to take financial risk a sex-linked trait? Evidence from national surveys of household finance," Discussion Papers 05/2013, Deutsche Bundesbank.
    9. Berger, Allen N. & Kick, Thomas & Schaeck, Klaus, 2014. "Executive board composition and bank risk taking," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 48-65.
    10. Frankenhaeuser, Marianne, 1996. "Stress and Gender," European Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 313-327, October.
    11. Gerdes, Christer & Gränsmark, Patrik, 2010. "Strategic behavior across gender: A comparison of female and male expert chess players," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 766-775, October.
    12. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    13. Brown, Kelly M. & Taylor, Laura O., 2000. "Do as you say, say as you do: evidence on gender differences in actual and stated contributions to public goods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 127-139, September.
    14. Muriel Niederle & Lise Vesterlund, 2010. "Explaining the Gender Gap in Math Test Scores: The Role of Competition," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 24(2), pages 129-144, Spring.
    15. Daniela Beckmann & Lukas Menkhoff, 2008. "Will Women Be Women? Analyzing the Gender Difference among Financial Experts," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 364-384, August.
    16. Ricardo F. Crespo & Irene van Staveren, 2011. "Would we have had this crisis if women had been running the financial sector?," Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(3-4), pages 241-250, October.
    17. Brad M. Barber & Terrance Odean, 2001. "Boys will be Boys: Gender, Overconfidence, and Common Stock Investment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(1), pages 261-292.
    18. Kray, Laura J. & Haselhuhn, Michael P., 2011. "Male Pragmatism in Ethical Decision Making," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt05n3d6pj, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    19. Jan Peil & Irene van Staveren (ed.), 2009. "Handbook of Economics and Ethics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 4252.
    20. Nataliya Barasinska, 2010. "Would Lehman Sisters Have Done It Differently?: An Empirical Analysis of Gender Differences in Investment Behavior," Working Paper / FINESS 6.2, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. van Staveren, I.P., 2012. "The Lehman Sisters Hypothesis: an exploration of literature and bankers," ISS Working Papers - General Series 545, International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam (ISS), The Hague.
    2. Bernd Frick & Clarissa Laura Maria Spiess Bru & Daniel Kaimann, 2023. "Are Women (Really) More Lenient? Gender Differences in Expert Evaluations," Working Papers Dissertations 106, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    3. Faccio, Mara & Marchica, Maria-Teresa & Mura, Roberto, 2016. "CEO gender, corporate risk-taking, and the efficiency of capital allocation," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 193-209.
    4. Julie A. Nelson, 2015. "Are Women Really More Risk-Averse Than Men? A Re-Analysis Of The Literature Using Expanded Methods," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 566-585, July.
    5. René Böheim & Mario Lackner & Wilhelm Wagner, 2022. "Raising the Bar: Causal Evidence on Gender Differences in Risk-Taking From a Natural Experiment," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 23(4), pages 460-478, May.
    6. Nelson, Julie A., 2012. "Are Women Really More Risk-Averse than Men?," Working Papers 179104, Tufts University, Global Development and Environment Institute.
    7. Fitriya Fauzi & Abdul Basyith & Poh-Ling Ho, 2017. "Women on boardroom: Does it create risk?," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 1325117-132, January.
    8. Paryavi, Maliheh, 2024. "Women lean back when representing others in competitions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    9. Cueva, Carlos & Rustichini, Aldo, 2015. "Is financial instability male-driven? Gender and cognitive skills in experimental asset markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 330-344.
    10. Young Zik Shin & Jeung-Yoon Chang & Kyeongmin Jeon & Hyunpyo Kim, 2020. "Female directors on the board and investment efficiency: evidence from Korea," Asian Business & Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 19(4), pages 438-479, September.
    11. Jetter, Michael & Walker, Jay K., 2016. "Gender in Jeopardy!: The Role of Opponent Gender in High-Stakes Competition," IZA Discussion Papers 9669, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Schlosser, Analia & Neeman, Zvika & Attali, Yigal, 2018. "Differential Performance in High vs. Low Stakes Tests: Evidence from the GRE Test," CEPR Discussion Papers 13360, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    13. Riener, Gerhard & Wagner, Valentin, 2017. "Shying away from demanding tasks? Experimental evidence on gender differences in answering multiple-choice questions," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 43-62.
    14. Bertrand, Marianne, 2011. "New Perspectives on Gender," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 17, pages 1543-1590, Elsevier.
    15. Jing Li & Jiang Cheng, 2023. "Are female CEOs associated with lower insolvency risk? Evidence from the US property‐casualty insurance industry," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 90(4), pages 941-973, December.
    16. De Paola, Maria & Gioia, Francesca & Scoppa, Vincenzo, 2015. "Are females scared of competing with males? Results from a field experiment," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 117-128.
    17. Böheim, René & Lackner, Mario, 2013. "Gender and Competition: Evidence from Jumping Competitions," IZA Discussion Papers 7243, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Czibor, Eszter & Claussen, Jörg & van Praag, Mirjam, 2019. "Women in a men’s world: Risk taking in an online card game community," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 62-89.
    19. Goodall, Amanda H. & Osterloh, Margit, 2015. "Women Have to Enter the Leadership Race to Win: Using Random Selection to Increase the Supply of Women into Senior Positions," IZA Discussion Papers 9331, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Oliver Entrop & Matthias F. Merkel, 2020. "Managers’ research education, the use of FX derivatives and corporate speculation," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 869-901, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:38:y:2014:i:5:p:995-1014.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.