IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/the/publsh/291.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk taking and gender in hierarchies

Author

Listed:
  • ,

    (Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley)

Abstract

In a labor market hierarchy, promotions are affected by the noisiness of information about the candidates. I study the hypothesis that males are more risk taking than females, and its implications for rates of promotion and abilities of survivors. I define promotion hierarchies with and without memory, where memory means that promotion depends on the entire history of success. In both types of hierarchies, the surviving risk takers have lower average ability whenever they have a higher survival rate. Further, even if more risk takers than non risk takers are promoted in the beginning of the hierarchy, that will be reversed over time. The risk takers will eventually have a lower survival rate, but higher ability. As a consequence of these differences, the various requirements of employment law cannot simultaneously be satisfied. Further, if promotion standards are chosen to maximize profit, the standards will reflect gender in ways that are difficult to distinguish from discriminatory intent.

Suggested Citation

  • ,, 2008. "Risk taking and gender in hierarchies," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 3(4), December.
  • Handle: RePEc:the:publsh:291
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://econtheory.org/ojs/index.php/te/article/viewFile/20080499/2132/115
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2002. "Sex Differences and Statistical Stereotyping in Attitudes Toward Financial Risk," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-03, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    2. Shelly J. Lundberg, 1991. "The Enforcement of Equal Opportunity Laws Under Imperfect Information: Affirmative Action and Alternatives," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(1), pages 309-326.
    3. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman & Nancy Lutz & V. Padmanbhan, 1997. "Playing it Safe: Men, Women, and Risk Aversion," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-42, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    4. Paul Milgrom & Sharon Oster, 1987. "Job Discrimination, Market Forces, and the Invisibility Hypothesis," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 102(3), pages 453-476.
    5. Jianakoplos, Nancy Ammon & Bernasek, Alexandra, 1998. "Are Women More Risk Averse?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 36(4), pages 620-630, October.
    6. David Neumark & Harry Holzer, 2000. "Assessing Affirmative Action," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(3), pages 483-568, September.
    7. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 2008. "Men, Women and Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 113, pages 1061-1073, Elsevier.
    8. Dekel, Eddie & Scotchmer, Suzanne, 1999. "On the Evolution of Attitudes towards Risk in Winner-Take-All Games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 125-143, July.
    9. Joseph E. Harrington & Jr., 1999. "Rigidity of Social Systems," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 107(1), pages 40-64, February.
    10. Lundberg, Shelly J & Startz, Richard, 1983. "Private Discrimination and Social Intervention in Competitive Labor Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(3), pages 340-347, June.
    11. Sobel, Joel, 2001. "On the Dynamics of Standards," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(4), pages 606-623, Winter.
    12. María Paz Espinosa & Javier Gardeazabal, 2013. "Do Students Behave Rationally in Multiple Choice Tests? Evidence from a Field Experiment," Journal of Economics and Management, College of Business, Feng Chia University, Taiwan, vol. 9(2), pages 107-135, July.
    13. Bardsley Peter & Sherstyuk Katerina, 2006. "Rat Races and Glass Ceilings," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-37, November.
    14. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2008. "Forecasting Risk Attitudes: An Experimental Study Using Actual and Forecast Gamble Choices," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-01, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Espinosa Maria Paz & Gardeazabal Javier, 2020. "The Gender-bias Effect of Test Scoring and Framing: A Concern for Personnel Selection and College Admission," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 20(3), pages 1-23, July.
    2. Suzanne Bijkerk & Silvia Dominguez-Martinez & Jurjen Kamphorst & Otto Swank, 2018. "Labor Market Quotas," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 18-036/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    3. María Paz Espinosa & Javier Gardeazabal, 2013. "Do Students Behave Rationally in Multiple Choice Tests? Evidence from a Field Experiment," Journal of Economics and Management, College of Business, Feng Chia University, Taiwan, vol. 9(2), pages 107-135, July.
    4. George-Levi Gayle & Limor Golan & Robert A. Miller, 2012. "Gender Differences in Executive Compensation and Job Mobility," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 30(4), pages 829-872.
    5. Calsamiglia, Caterina & Franke, Jörg & Rey-Biel, Pedro, 2013. "The incentive effects of affirmative action in a real-effort tournament," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 15-31.

    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. Scotchmer, Suzanne, 2003. "Affirmative Action in Hierarchies," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt12j9d7c1, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    2. Scotchmer, Suzanne, 2003. "Affirmative Action in Hierarchies," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt2tt598kt, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    3. Scotchmer, Suzanne, 2003. "Affirmative Action in Hierarchies," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt12j9d7c1, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    4. Sheryl Ball & Catherine Eckel & Maria Heracleous, 2010. "Risk aversion and physical prowess: Prediction, choice and bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 167-193, December.
    5. Parrotta, Pierpaolo & Smith, Nina, 2013. "Female-Led Firms: Performance and Risk Attitudes," IZA Discussion Papers 7613, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Burkhard Schipper, 2012. "Sex Hormones and Choice under Risk," Working Papers 127, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    7. Crosetto, P. & Filippin, A., 2017. "Safe options induce gender differences in risk attitudes," Working Papers 2017-05, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    8. Schipper, Burkhard C., 2023. "Sex hormones and choice under risk," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    9. Anwesha Bandyopadhyay & Lutfunnahar Begum & Philip J. Grossman, 2021. "Gender differences in the stability of risk attitudes," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(2), pages 169-201, October.
    10. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    11. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri, 2012. "Strong Evidence for Gender Differences in Risk Taking," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 50-58.
    12. Eckel, Catherine C. & El-Gamal, Mahmoud A. & Wilson, Rick K., 2009. "Risk loving after the storm: A Bayesian-Network study of Hurricane Katrina evacuees," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 110-124, February.
    13. Caliendo, Marco & Cobb-Clark, Deborah A. & Obst, Cosima & Uhlendorff, Arne, 2023. "Risk preferences and training investments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 668-686.
    14. Gianni De Fraja, 2005. "Reverse Discrimination And Efficiency In Education," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 46(3), pages 1009-1031, August.
    15. James Fain, 2016. "Screening Discrimination in a Broader Context," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(4), pages 276-294, October.
    16. Mohammadi, Ali & Shafi, Kourosh, 2015. "The contribution patterns of equity-crowdfunding investors: Gender, Risk aversion and Observational learning," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 419, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    17. Catherine Eckel & Lata Gangadharan & Philip J. Grossman & Nina Xue, 2021. "The gender leadership gap: insights from experiments," Chapters, in: Ananish Chaudhuri (ed.), A Research Agenda for Experimental Economics, chapter 7, pages 137-162, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, E. Elisabet, 2010. "Preference heterogeneity in experiments: Comparing the field and laboratory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 209-224, February.
    19. Rezina Sultana, 2017. "Affirmative Action And Dynamics Of Work-Ethic Preferences," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(3), pages 1350-1369, July.
    20. Astrid Gamba & Luca Stanca, 2023. "Mis-judging merit: the effects of adjudication errors in contests," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(3), pages 550-587, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Labor market hierarchy; promotion; discrimination; affirmative action; hierarchy; risk taking; gender bias;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J7 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor Discrimination

    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:the:publsh:291. 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: Martin J. Osborne (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://econtheory.org .

    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.