IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rim/rimwps/24-13.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evaluating Gender Differences in the Effects of Ambiguity and Misperception on Entrepreneurship in Three Business Development Stages: A Panel Data Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Grace C. Liu

    (Research to Empower, Syosset, New York, USA)

  • Willem Spanjers

    (Kingston University London, UK; ICEA; Rimini Centre for Economic Analysis)

Abstract

This research focuses on the role of uncertainty in explaining gender disparities in entrepreneurship by testing a behavioral decision model. It examines how misperceptions and ambiguity affect men’s and women’s decisions on founding startups or maintaining established firms in developed and developing countries. It starts from the theoretical assumption that entrepreneurial decision-making follows the specific version of cumulative prospect theory. This model incorporates the Ellsberg paradox and the Allais paradox. Data from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor in 46 countries/territories over 2013–2019 was used for a panel data econometric analysis using Generalized Least Squares (GLS) and fixed-effects models. After the panel data analysis, a binomial sign test and signed-rank tests were done to validate the theory on gender disparities in entrepreneurship. Findings indicate that there are clear gender differences in behavioral characteristics of entrepreneurs in the face of varying uncertainty levels according to three business development stages. During the startup stage, confidence in ability and confidence from knowing an entrepreneur is positively associated with entrepreneurial rates, whereas fearing the worst is negatively associated. Gender-bias discount factor progressively hinders women rather than men as the business develops, particularly for women in developing countries. During the established business stage, fearing the worst, confidence, and high reference points are positively associated, especially for women’s entrepreneurship. Due to a self-selection effect, once women can enter the scale-up stage, they are more likely than men to continue to the established business stage. This research concludes that effective policies should consider the specific needs of women and the barriers that women face when setting up and sustaining businesses. It underlines how women’s economic empowerment contributes to gender equality and broader societal advancement.

Suggested Citation

  • Grace C. Liu & Willem Spanjers, 2024. "Evaluating Gender Differences in the Effects of Ambiguity and Misperception on Entrepreneurship in Three Business Development Stages: A Panel Data Analysis," Working Paper series 24-13, Rimini Centre for Economic Analysis.
  • Handle: RePEc:rim:rimwps:24-13
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://rcea.org/RePEc/pdf/wp24-13.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sarath Tomy & Eric Pardede, 2018. "From Uncertainties to Successful Start Ups: A Data Analytic Approach to Predict Success in Technological Entrepreneurship," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-24, February.
    2. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    3. Indy Bernoster & Cornelius A. Rietveld & A. Roy Thurik & Olivier Torrès, 2018. "Overconfidence, Optimism and Entrepreneurship," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-14, June.
    4. Carl Magnus Bjuggren & Niklas Elert, 2019. "Gender differences in optimism," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(47), pages 5160-5173, October.
    5. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang, 2001. "Mental Accounting, Loss Aversion, and Individual Stock Returns," NBER Working Papers 8190, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Esther-Mirjam Sent & Irene van Staveren, 2019. "A Feminist Review of Behavioral Economic Research on Gender Differences," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(2), pages 1-35, April.
    7. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Gilboa, Itzhak, 1987. "Expected utility with purely subjective non-additive probabilities," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 65-88, February.
    9. Spanjers, Willy, 2008. "Central banks and ambiguity," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 85-102.
    10. David Kelsey & Willy Spanjers, 2004. "Ambiguity in Partnerships," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(497), pages 528-546, July.
    11. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    12. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang, 2001. "Mental Accounting, Loss Aversion, and Individual Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(4), pages 1247-1292, August.
    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. Grace C. Liu & Willem Spanjers, 2023. "Modeling Uncertainties and Gender Differences in Entrepreneurial Decision Making," Working Paper series 23-15, Rimini Centre for Economic Analysis.
    2. Schmidt, Ulrich & Zank, Horst, 2009. "A simple model of cumulative prospect theory," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3-4), pages 308-319, March.
    3. Yehuda Izhakian, 2012. "Ambiguity Measurement," Working Papers 12-01, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    4. Izhakian, Yehuda, 2017. "Expected utility with uncertain probabilities theory," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 91-103.
    5. Horst Zank, 2010. "On probabilities and loss aversion," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 243-261, March.
    6. De Waegenaere, A.M.B. & Wakker, P.P., 1997. "Choquet Integrals With Respect to Non-Monotonic Set Functions," Other publications TiSEM 85f2b7aa-da15-4c19-9765-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    7. Veld, Chris & Veld-Merkoulova, Yulia V., 2008. "The risk perceptions of individual investors," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 226-252, April.
    8. Amit Kothiyal & Vitalie Spinu & Peter Wakker, 2014. "An experimental test of prospect theory for predicting choice under ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 1-17, February.
    9. Francisco Gomes & Michael Haliassos & Tarun Ramadorai, 2021. "Household Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 919-1000, September.
    10. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    11. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.
    12. Chi, Yichun & Zheng, Jiakun & Zhuang, Shengchao, 2022. "S-shaped narrow framing, skewness and the demand for insurance," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 279-292.
    13. Enrico G. De Giorgi & David B. Brown & Melvyn Sim, 2010. "Dual representation of choice and aspirational preferences," University of St. Gallen Department of Economics working paper series 2010 2010-07, Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen.
    14. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2005. "Are Universal Preferences Possible? Calibration Results for Non-Expected Utility Theories," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 633, Boston College Department of Economics.
    15. Yacine AÏT‐SAHALI & Michael W. Brandt, 2001. "Variable Selection for Portfolio Choice," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(4), pages 1297-1351, August.
    16. Thomas Astebro & Frank Fossen & Cédric Gutierrez, 2024. "Entrepreneurs: Clueless, Biased, Poor Heuristics, or Bayesian Machines?," Working Papers hal-04759301, HAL.
    17. Dorian Jullien & Alexandre Truc, 2024. "Towards a History of Behavioral and Experimental Economics in France," GREDEG Working Papers 2024-23, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    18. Olivier L’Haridon & Lætitia Placido, 2010. "Betting on Machina’s reflection example: an experiment on ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 375-393, September.
    19. Barnett, William A. & Han, Qing & Zhang, Jianbo, 2021. "Monetary services aggregation under uncertainty: A behavioral economics extension using Choquet expectation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 437-447.
    20. Alexander L. Brown & Taisuke Imai & Ferdinand M. Vieider & Colin F. Camerer, 2024. "Meta-analysis of Empirical Estimates of Loss Aversion," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 62(2), pages 485-516, June.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:rim:rimwps:24-13. 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: Marco Savioli (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rcfeait.html .

    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.