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

1. 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

2. 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 risks • Market doing well, subprime lending occurred • Subprime loans were collateralised with higher rated debt (collateralised debt obligations – CDOs) • Packaged CDO loans sold to other banks • House prices fell, causing bank liabilities to increase • Fall of market caused trading reluctances from banks • Government stepped in

3. 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)

4. 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)

5. 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

6. 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

7. Experiment 1 Results Average bet Average no. of max bets

8. Experiment 1 Results • 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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.

12. 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).

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. Experiment 2 Results

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. General Critique continued… • 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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)

25. 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/

26. 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.