Download Effect of Hormone Exposure and Finger Ratios on Economic Decision-Making: Study on House-M and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Decision Making in PDF only on Docsity!
THE HOUSE-MONEY EFFECT, ESCALATION OF COMMITMENT AND
TESTOSTERONE (2D:4D RATIO): AN EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH
Anderson M. Teixeira^1 Benjamin M. Tabak^2 Daniel O. Cajueiro^3
Área 8 - Microeconomia, Métodos Quantitativos e Finanças
Resumo: Este artigo investiga a relação entre o marcador biológico 2D:4D e a concepção psicológica do house-money-effect (HME). Entre os resultados obtidos não foi possível constatar que os voluntários apresentam um comportamento consoante ao postulado pela hipótese da house-money effect e escalation of commitment em ambos os sexos. Os resultados do experimento, corroboram a hipótese de que, para voluntários de ambos os sexos, com menor razão 2D:4D apostaram mais após um ganho e também após uma perda. Esse resultado está de acordo com a sugestão da literatura do (HME) e do marcador biológico, ou seja, voluntários com maior exposição ao hormônio testosterona investem mais, tendo em vista que são menos avessos ao risco. Em relação à análise de robustez os resultados indicaram que o marcador biológico 2D:4D foi um preditor significativo para a diferença de comportamento entre homens e mulheres. Palavras-chave: Risco, Experimento, Testosterona. JEL Classification:C9, D Abstract: This paper investigates the relationship between the 2D:4D biological marker and the psycholo- gical conception of house-money-effect (HME). Among the results obtained it was not possible to verify that the volunteers present a behavior according to the hypothesis of the House Money Effect hypothesis and escalation of commitment in both sexes. The results of the experiment, however, corroborate the hypothesis that, for volunteers with lower 2D:4D ratios, they bet more after a gain and also after a loss. This result is in agreement with the suggestion of the literature of (HME) and the biological marker, that is, volunteers with greater exposure to the hormone testosterone invest more, considering that they are less risk-averse. Regarding the robustness analysis the results indicated that the 2D: 4D biological marker was a significant predictor for the difference in behavior between men and women. keywords: Risk, Experiment, Testosterone. JEL Classification:C9, D
1 INTRODUCTION
One of the most relevant themes in economic theory is understanding the decision- making and judgment processes in human beings. In these everyday decisions the decision- maker is not quite sure what the consequence or result of a certain choice will be. This is because, given the choice that need to made daily, the decision-maker is in fact behaving as if s/he were betting in a lottery, whose result is linked to the state of nature. (Teixeira, 2013). Numerous situations may exemplify this phenomenon, such as the purchase of a used car, financial investments, the contracting of health or car insurance, horse races, lotteries and casinos, among many others. (^1) UFG-FACE, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Programa de Pós Graduação em Economia (PPE), Goiânia, Goiás, Brasil. (^2) Fundação Getúlio Vargas - FGV. Escola de Políticas Públicas e Governo,Brasília, DF, Brasil. (^3) Departamento de Economia, Universidade de Brasília, FACE, Brasilia,DF, Brasil.
In this context, in recent years a series of studies has been attempting to understand the nature of human behavior, not only from a cognitive perspective (behavioral economics), but also considering biological factors and their connection with certain personality traits both in men and women. In these studies, the main biological factor investigated was exposure to the hormone testosterone in the uterus, by way of a proxy for the 2D:4D ratio biological marker. Researchers working on this new theoretical front indicate that higher exposure to testosterone in the uterus may be inferred when 2D (index finger) is lower than 4D (ring finger), and is an indicator of many personality traits that will develop over the lifetime of a human being. According to these hypotheses, lower 2D:4D ratios in both genders is associated with the following personality traits: higher fertility, good health, greater ability in sports and music, competition and dominance, less fear, greater aggressiveness, and a higher inclination towards risks and gambling. In this context, recent research suggest that the difference in behavior between genders, regarding economic issues such as the aversion to risk and competition, may be partially explained by the higher exposure to the hormone testosterone. (Manning et al.(1998), MCIntyre, (2006) and Cohen-Bendahana et al.(2005) and Könekopp et al. (2007, 2010). Therefore, the aim of this article was to gather experimental evidence on whether greater exposure to the hormone testosterone (lower 2D:4D ratio) influences decision-making among the genders, particularly with regard to the cognitive bias known as the House-Money Effect (HME) and Escalation of Commitment. In addition to this introduction, the article is organized into 8 sections. In the following section, the theory and certain empirical evidence related to the hormone testosterone and risk are presented. Section 3 discusses the House Money Effect (HME) and Escalation of Commitment behavioral bias. In section four, we discuss the experimental hypothesis. In section 5, the experimental procedure is described. In section 6, the results. In section 7, the concluding remarks and lastly, in section 8, the complementary material.
2 THE HORMONE TESTOSTERONE: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND EX- PERIMENTAL EVIDENCE
According to Garbarino et al.(2011), androgens are hormones that play a fundamental role in the human brain and behavior, due to organizational and transitory effects. The organizational effect takes place during brain development, while the transitory effect occurs over a given lifetime, with the circulation of the hormone activating personality traits inherent to human behavior. In this context, several areas of knowledge have sought to explain the relation between biological factors and behavior traits resulting from the exposure to the hormone testosterone. The seminal work done Manning et al. (1998) produced evidence of the relation between said hormone and certain traits of human behavior. For being less invasive, 2D:4D was determined as the biological marker indicating greater exposure to the hormone testosterone in the uterus (MCIntyre, 2006) and Cohen-Bendahana et al.(2005).
In this context, when passing by a gambling machine the person decides to bet a $0. centavo coin, and surprisingly wins $100 Argentine pesos. How will he or she behave during the rest of the night at the casino? Now imagine the same researcher, after a tiresome article presentation session, goes to the hotel’s pool area to take a swim and have a few beers with some peers and, when it comes time to pay the bill, discovers that R$100,00 is missing from his or her wallet. Once again, this will have an effect on his or her behavior during the rest of the day^5. According to Thaler and Johnson (1990), in sequence games with unlimited rounds agents will be less averse to risk when there is a prior gain. In other words, individuals will be less sensitive to losses as a result of the prior gains. In the finance behavior literature, this effect is known as the House-Money Effect (HME). Given that prior gains reduce aversion to risk, Thaler and Johnson (1990) developed the Quasi-Hedonic Editing Theory (QHE). To do this, they resorted to the Prospect Theory, which establishes a two-phase distinction in agents’ choice processes. In the first, called Editing, the individual performs a preliminary assessment of prospects, and creates a set of the most simple gain and/or loss combinations. In the second phase, called Assessment, based on the prospective combinations in the Editing phase, the individual assesses and selects the set of greater value. Given these two phases, how are previous results condensed in the Editing phase? For Thaler and Johnson (1990, p.645) it is possible to understand the role of prior gains and losses, since “(...) there is some flexibility in how prospects are edited, particularly when a priori outcomes might influence the reference point”. The above mentioned authors subsequently proposed an alternative rule for the editing of prospects. According to the QHE rule, the losses of agents are not that relevant, since prior gains induce lower aversion to risk in subsequent periods. On the other hand, prior losses may not be automatically canceled out, particularly when the outcome of the subsequent round does not offer a break even opportunity, i.e., when a gain does not compensate prior losses. However, according to Staw (1976) and Brockner (1992), prior losses may not be treated in isolation, and must be assessed according to a psychological concept called escalation of commitment. This concept reflects greater propensity towards risk even in light of prior losses. The theoretical explanation for this psychological concept may be found in three theories: a) Self-Justification, b) Prospect Theory and; c) Gambles Fallacy. According to Staw (1976), in Self-Justification an individual will bet a higher amount in the subsequent round, since he or she does not admit error in prior decisions, and rationally justify the errors based on their beliefs. For Kahneman and Tverky (1979), Brockner (1992), and Lam and Ozorio (2013) based on Kahneman and Tverky (1979), in the Prospect Theory more money will allocated in subsequent gambles, since lower aversion to losses justifies a higher bet so that money lost in the prior round may be recovered. Lastly, Clotfelter and Cook (1993), in the Gambler’s Fallacy, hold that gamblers believe (^5) These cases are mere illustrations adapted from Thaler and Johnson (1990, p.643).
that some particular outcome, that has not yet ocurred, will occur in the future. Therefore, they will increase their bets in subsequent rounds on the belief that prior losses will increase the chance of future gains^6.
3.1 EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF THE HOUSE-MONEY EFFECT AND ESCALATION OF COMMITMENT A large number of studies have provided empirical support to the theoretical concepts outlined above, namely the influence of prior gains and/or losses on future gambling behavior. Fernandes et.al (2006) performed an experiment based on slight modifications to the work of Haigh and List (2005). The study was conducted with volunteers from both Brazil and Spain, testing whether prior gains and/or losses interfere in subsequent decisions. Fernandes et.al (2006) introduced some changes to the treatment groups, subsequently called treatment I and treatment C. The volunteers in the treatment I group received the sum of 100 monetary units, part of which could be gambled on financial lottery. This treatment is similar to that of the control group H proposed by Gneezy and Potters (1997). In the treatment C group, in each odd-numbered round (1,3,5,7,9 and 11) volunteers received 100 monetary units, also betting part of this amount. In the even-numbered round (2,4,6,8,10 and 12) volunteers gambled part of the initial amount in addition to the gain accrued in the previous round. Thus, volunteers considered prior gain and/or loss outcomes. The idea was to observe the behavior of gamblers in the subsequent round to capture the house-money effect. The results obtained by Fernandes et.al (2006) refuted the house-money effect since the participants in the treatment C group gambled a higher share of the amount given when losing in the previous round as opposed to a gain. Similarly, Lam and Ozorio (2013) assessed the role of gains and losses in subsequent choices made by the genders. The working hypotheses tested were the following: (1) whether men with financial gains in previous rounds tend to increase their propensity to risk in subsequent lotteries, and; (2) whether women with financial losses in previous rounds tend to increase the propensity to risk in subsequent lotteries. These hypotheses were verified in an experiment involving the participation of 3 different groups of volunteers. The first group, called RP, was comprised of executives working in the casinos of Macao (China). The second group, called RC, was comprised of volunteers who regularly went to casinos in the same city. And the third and last group, called NRC, was comprised of volunteers who never went to a casino. The results obtained by the authors suggest that, in the case of men of the RC group, the average amount bet was higher after a gain, while for women the average amount bet was higher after a loss. The behavior was also detected for the NRC group, with men converging towards (^6) For further details, see: Gamblers Fallacy, Notes: The ‘Gamlber’s fallacy’ in lottery play. Management Science 39, n. 12: 1521-5.
For the experiment, undergraduate students from the Federal University of Goiás (UFG) were recruited.^8 The experiments were carried out on 24 computers in room 104 of Classroom Center B (Baru) of the same institution. Proceeding in this manner, participant error and weariness was avoided with the use of a specific software.^9 The process was streamlined so that while participants decided the amounts to be bet in the financial lottery, the software registered the amounts actually bet, the time taken to make decisions per lottery, the gains in each round, the amounts accrued during the experiment, all according to the rules of each treatment group. Two interleaved sessions per round were held between the treatment and the control group for both experiments. By doing so, we aimed to reduce the exchange of information between participants and non-participants. Five volunteers participated in the shorter experimental session, and 24 participated in the longer session. A total of 6 sessions were held, four for the treatments HME-IR, and two for the HME-C. The duration of the experiment depended on the number of participants per session, lasting 55 minutes on average, with 20 min given to read the instructions, to demonstrate the example projected on a screen, to fill out a questionnaire on certain biological and social information, and the making of the bets. The remaining time was used to take the photocopies of both hands, to gather the signatures of the terms of consent, and to randomly choose the winners. Doubts, when they arose, were addressed individually. Leaflets were handed out throughout Classroom Center B and at cafeterias on the Uni- versity campus requesting volunteers. The leaflets indicated the days and times established for participation in the scientific study, and offered the chance of winning up to R$ 21.00 (twenty one reais). Also issued were special leaflets for the two sessions of the House-Money Effect (HME-C) treatment, indicating the chance of winnings of up to R$ 90.00 (ninety reais^10 ). Given budgetary restrictions, show up fees were not offered to participants, but a sug- gestion was made to professors in the Economics, Business Management and Accounting departments to offer an extra 5 points on tests to those participating.
5.1 SPECIFIC PROCEDURE
The experiment conducted was a replication of the work of Fernandes et.al (2006). The aim was to capture the behavior of economic agents in light of the gains and/or losses obtained in previous rounds. In Fernandes et.al (2006), volunteers were divided into two groups.
- Participants of the IR Group (Isolated result): followed the same rule for Group H of the Gneezy and Potters (1997), and Teixeira et.al (2015) MLA experiment. (^8) The experiment was approved by the UnB Ethic Committee. UnB, CEP - IH. CAAE. 13140713.6.0000.5540. (^9) The programs used were developed by Marcus Vinícius Nascimento, who may be contacted by email at
10 marckyn@gmail.com. Due to budgetary restrictions regarding this treatment, two sessions were held using the maximum capacity of the IT laboratory, which was 24 computers for a total sample of 48 volunteers.
- Participants of Group C (Accumulated result): the experiment comprised 12 consecutive rounds of the same lottery, the first being a test and not worth anything. In round 1, volunteers received 100 monetary units and decided how much of this amount to gamble in the lottery. In subsequent rounds, the volunteers once again decided how much of the 100 monetary units to gamble in addition to the gains accrued previously (previous round) in the following lottery:
- You have two-thirds of a chance (67%) of losing the amount you bet, and one-third (33%) of winning 2.5 times the amount bet.
The experiment took place over 12 rounds, where volunteers were aware of the previous gain/loss results which generated the mechanism needed to observe their reaction towards the next lottery (t+i), thus capturing the house-money-effect and also the escalation of commitment. As in the experimental procedure of Gneezy and Potters (1997), in Teixeira et.al (2015) in each round volunteers would decide the amount to be bet, and the gains and losses of a given lottery depended on the registry letter chosen from among three alternatives, A, B or C. Thus, if the volunteer chose letter C, then this would be his or her registry letter for the experiment, and would also be a winner if the letter chosen randomly by the program were the same as the registry letter. It must be remembered that each registry letter had the same 33 Regarding the gains to be distributed in the experiment, once again every two monetary units represented one centavo of a Real. Volunteers began with 100 monetary units, which corresponded to 50 centavos of a Real (R0. 50 ), Analogous to the Gneezy and Potters (1997), and Teixeira et.al (2015) MLA experiment, if a volunteer bet 100 monetary units and his or her registry were drawn, the gain would be a total of 350 monetary units, since by winning he or she would receive 2.5 times the amount bet, in addition to the initial 100 monetary units. In the case of a loss, the volunteer would have 0 monetary units, but would have 100 monetary units in the following round.
6 RESULTS
A total of 98 volunteers participated in the HME experiment: 50 participants in HME-IR, and 48 in the HME-C treatment. In the HME-IR treatment, 32 males and 18 females participated, while in the HME-C treatment, male participation was 30 volunteers, and female 18 volunteers. One important result was the measuring of the 2D:4D biological marker. In accordance with standard procedure described in the literature, the measurement of the right hand and the average of both hands were used to determine differences in the biological markers between the genders. In effect, the difference in the 2D:4D ration was not significant for either treatment, for both the right hand and the average of both hands. For the HME IR treatment, the 2D:4D ratio for females was 0.9946, and for men 0.9830 (t = 0.8237, p = 0.4142). For the average of both
Among volunteers with lower ratios in the HME-IR group the average amount bet after a loss was 61.31 units. This average value is higher than the average amount invested after a gain, which was 54.65 monetary units. Similarly, for the HME-C group, the average amount bet was 153,30 monetary units after a loss, an amount lower than that bet after a gain, which was 183. on average. In light of this data, among volunteers with lower ratios in the HME-IR group, the results indicate the predominance of the escalation of commitment effect, but among those in the HME-C group, the house-money effect predominates. The statistical confirmation of these results must nevertheless be tested by comparing them with the average amounts bet in the Mann-Whitney test. Table 2 summarizes the p-values of the Mann-Whitney test. Table 2. P– Value of the Mann-Whitney test for differences between averages (both genders) of volunteers with higher 2D:4D in relation to those with lower 2D:4D. Higher 2D:4D Lower 2D:4D After Loss vs After Gain After Loss vs After Gain HME-IR 0.9638 0. HME-C 0.7969 0. The result for the comparison of the average amounts bet in the HME-IR for volunteers of either gender with higher 2D:4D ratios was not statistically significant. Therefore, we did not reject the null hypothesis that held that the averages were equal. Thus, it was not possible to confirm whether the escalation of commitment predominant among volunteers of said treatment. For the HME-C treatment, the test of the averages was not statistically significant. Despite the apparent difference between the average amounts bet, the null hypothesis was not rejected, according to which the averages were equal. Consequently, it was not possible to statistically confirm the predominance of the house-money effect after a gain for volunteers of this treatment group. Although the predominance of the house-money effect was not confirmed for volunteers with lower ratios in the HME-C treatment, nor for escalation of commitment in the HME-IR treatment, the following exercise aimed to compare the average amount bet by volunteers with lower ratios in comparison with volunteers with higher ratios. The following question was expected to be answered by this exercise:
- Do volunteers of both genders with lower 2D:4D ratios invest higher average amounts in both HME-IR and HME-C treatments for situations involving prior losses as well as for those involving prior gains?
The groups After Loss1 and After Gain1 were created for the average value bet by volunteers of both genders with higher ratios, and the After Loss2 and After Gain2 groups for the average amounts bet by volunteers of both gender with lower ratios. The results are presented in Table 3 below.
Table 3. P – value of the Mann-Whitney test for differences in average amounts bet for both genders with higher 2D:4D ratios in comparison with volunteers of both genders with lower 2D:4D. After Loss1 vs After Loss2 After Gain1 vs After Gain HME-IR 0.00149*** 0.008936*** HME-C 0.5548 0. (^1) ***Statistical significance 1%
The results of the comparison of the average amounts bet after a loss among volunteers with higher ratios in the relation to those with lower ratios in the HME-IR were statistically significant on the 1% level of significance. This rejects the hypothesis in which the average amounts bet are equal. In light of this, it may be inferred that volunteers with lower 2D:4D ratios invest higher amounts after a loss that those with higher 2D:4D ratios. Along the same line, the comparison between the average amounts bet after a gain are also statistically significant at 1% and therefore the hypothesis that the averages are equal may be rejected. In other words, the results suggest that higher exposure to the hormone testosterone influenced the higher propensity towards risk, and thus corroborates a higher aversion to risk both after a loss as well as after a gain. In relation to the HME-C group, the results were not statistically significant, and thus it was not possible to reject the null hypothesis according to which the averages are the same, in spite of the difference between the averages be apparently high.
6.2 ROBUSTNESS ANALYSIS FOR THE BIOLOGICAL MARKER AND THE HME In this section, we present the results of the robustness analysis of the data for the HME experiment. Our concern was to verify whether the results obtained were biased, in light of the presence of other biological variables, such as weight and height, gender, race, and whether the volunteer is left- or right-handed. In order to this, we first performed the logarithmic transformation of the variables average amount bet and biological marker 2D:4D. With this transformation, the variables may be considered elasticities, thus facilitating interpretation. Therefore, a Minimum Ordinary Square OLS was calculated as follows: Vi = α 0 + β 1 X 1 + β 2 X 2 + β 3 X 3 + β 4 X 4 + β 5 X 5 + β 6 X 6 + μi (1) Onde: Vi i is the average amount bet in both HME treatments for both genders; X 1 = 2D:4D measure; X 2 = dummy variable for gender, 1 for males and 0 for females; X 3 = dummy variable for race, 1 for white and 0 for non-white; X 4 = dummy variable for left-/right-handed (laterality); X 5 = height; X 6 = weight e μ 1 the error term. Based on the variables to be estimated, Table 4 summarizes the results of the MOS regression with robust errors. Table 4. MQO estimates for the HME experiment (HME-IR and HME-C)
Once again, in relation to the gender dummy variable, it was not possible to infer a difference in the average amount bet between men and women. Together with the result of the variable gender, it was also not possible to determine any difference between the amounts bet by left- and right-handed individuals, nor for the variables weight and height, given the statistical insignificance of the variables. Therefore, the results are consistent with those obtained by Garbarino et.al (2011) for weight and height. At the 5% level of significance, there was a significant difference between the values bet by whites and non-whites, which were 22.25% lower for participants declaring being white. This result is relevant since it expresses ethnic heterogeneity in the treatment.
7 CONCLUDING REMARKS
This study investigated the relation between the 2D:4D biological marker and the psy- chological concept called house-money-effect (HME) by replicating the experiment performed by Fernandes et al. (2006). From the results obtained, it was not possible to determine whether the volunteers presented behavior consistent with the House Money Effect nor the escalation of commitment concepts for either gender. The results of the experiment did, however, corroborate the hypothesis that both men and women volunteers with lower ratios bet more both after a gain as well as a loss in the HME-IR treatment, is spite of the HME-C treatment not being statistically significant. This result is in agreement with the mention of the biological marker in the literature, i.e., volunteer with higher exposure to the hormone testosterone invest more, considering that they a less averse to risk. In relation to the robustness analysis, the results indicated that the 2D:4D biological marker was a significant predictor of the difference in behavior between men and women. However, this as determined for the analysis involving both treatments (HME-IR and HME-C).
8 APPENDIX SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
The annexes related to the experiment.
8.1 1.SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS: HME-IR
Thank you for participating in the choice under uncertainty experiment (decision-making). Please read carefully the instructions of the experiment. Kindly do not communicate in any way with the other volunteers and, during the experiment, turn off you cell phone, iPad, or any other communication device. Do not look at the choices made by the other participants so that you do not influence the choices made by the other participants and that theirs do not influence yours. If you have any doubts, raise your hand and the monitor will answer your question individually. The experiment is comprised of three stages. In the first stage, you will respond to a questionnaire with questions on certain biological and social traits. In the second stage, you will
play rounds in the experiment. In the third stage, after concluding participation in the rounds of the experiment, raise your hand so that the monitor may take a photocopy of your left and right hands. Normally a second copy will be taken of your hands if the first copy is not clear, and you are requested to remove any rings or jewelry you may be wearing on your fingers. At the end of this phase, a winner will be drawn from among the volunteers for the prize accumulated during the experiment. The experiment will last approximately 55 minutes. The instructions are simple, but must be followed carefully and, at the end of the experiment, you will receive a sum of money. The experiment is comprised of 13 consecutive rounds of a same lottery, but the first round will be a test and will not be worth anything, and thus you will only officially play 12 rounds. In each of the rounds, you will receive 100 m.u. (monetary units) and will decide how much of this amount you will bet on the following lottery:
- You have two-thirds of a chance (67%) of losing the amount you bet, and one-third (33%) of winning 2.5 times the amount bet.
In each round, the volunteer will key in the amount of the bet and confirm the amount, and will proceed accordingly in each subsequent round. Gains and losses will depend on the letter registered. This letter will be chosen by the volunteer at the beginning of the experiment from three options: A, B or C. The letter chosen by the volunteer shall be the same for all rounds of the experiment, i.e., all 12 rounds. A volunteer will be the winner if his or her registered letter matches the letter randomly chosen by the program and will lose if his or her registered number is different. Each letter has a 1/3 (33%) chance of being drawn, and only after the amounts of the bets are placed will the letter be drawn by the program. Remember that since there are 3 letters, and that one of them will correspond to the letter chosen by you, your chance of winning will be 33% or 1/3, and of losing will be 67% or 2/3. If a volunteer decides to bet X m.u. and wins, he or she will gain 2.5 times the amount bet plus the 100 u.m. received at the beginning of the round. To illustrate a possible scenario, suppose a participant decides to bet 50 u.m. and wins. The total gain for the participant will be 50 u.m. x 2.5 +100, reaching at total 225 u.m., but in the case of a loss, the volunteer will remain with only the 50 u.m. not bet. In the subsequent round, you will once again receive 100 u.m. and will decide how much of this amount you will bet on the lottery. The program will inform the gain for the round, and the amount accrued in all rounds. Every two monetary units represents 1 centavo (2 u.m. is equal to 1 centavo) thus 100 u.m. represent fifty centavos of Real (R$ 0.50). Remember: your registry number will always be same, but a different letter may be drawn after each round. At the end of the experiment, your total gains will be added up and this will be
that one of them will correspond to the letter chosen by you, your chance of winning will be 33% or 1/3, and of losing will be 67% or 2/3. If a volunteer decides to bet X m.u. and wins, he or she will gain 2.5 times the amount bet plus the 100 u.m. received at the beginning of the round. To illustrate a possible scenario, suppose a participant decides to bet 50 u.m. and wins. The total gain for the participant will be 50 u.m. x 2.5 +100, reaching at total 225 u.m., but in the case of a loss, the volunteer will remain with only the 50 u.m. not bet. In the subsequent round, you will once again receive 100 u.m. and will decide how much of this amount you will bet on the lottery. The program will inform the gain for the round, and the amount accrued in all rounds. Every two monetary units represents 1 centavo (2 u.m. is equal to 1 centavo) thus 100 u.m. represent fifty centavos of Real (R$ 0.50). Remember: your registry number will always be same, but a different letter may be drawn after each round. At the end of the experiment, your total gains will be added up and this will be the amount that you may win after the last drawing of the experiment. Thus, randomly, by way of a drawing, 10% of participants will received the accumulated prize.
8.3 BIOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL TRAIT QUESTIONNAIRE
- Your full name:
- Your age:
- Your data of birth:
- Your gender: ( ) Male ( ) Female:
- Your ethnicity: ( ) White ( ) Black ( ) Mixed ( ) Yellow ( ) Indigenous:
- Your place in your family’s birth order:
- Your height:
- Your weight:
- Left or right-handed:
- What is current semester:
- Your email address:
9 REFERÊNCIAS
ACKERT, Lucy, F. CHARUPAT, Narat, CHURCH, Bryan, K, DEAVES, Richard. An experimental examination of the house money effect in a multi-period setting. Experimental Economics, 9, pp. 5-16, 2006.
APICELLA, L.Coren, DREBER, Anna, GRAY, B.Peter, LITTLE, C. Anthony, HOFF- MAN, Moshe, CAMPBELL, C. Benjamim. Androgens and Competitiveness in Men. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics. Vol.4, No.1, pp. 54-62, 2011. APICELLA, L. Coren, DREBER, Anna, CAMPBELL, Benjamin, GRAY, B. Peter, HOFFMAN, Moshe, LITTLE, C. Anthony. Testosterone and financial risk preferences. Evolution and Human behavior, 29, pp.384-390, 2008. BAILEY, A. Allison, HURD, L. Peter. Finger length (2D:4D) correlates with physical aggression in men but not in women. Biological Psychology, xxx, pp. xxx, 2004. BERNATZI, Shlomo, Richard, H. THALER. Myopic loss aversion and the equidity premium puzzle. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. Vol. 110, No. 1, pp. 73-92, 1995. BENARTZI, Shlomo, Thaler, H. Thaler. Risk Aversion or Myopia? Choices in Repeated Gambles and Retirement. Management Science, Vol.45, No.3, March, 1999. BROWN, M. Windy, HINES, Melissa, FANE, A. Briony, BREEDLOVES, S. Marc. Masculinized Finger Length Patterns in Human Males and Females with Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia. Hormones and Behavior, 42, pp.380-386, 2002. BRAÑAS-GARZA, Pablo, RUSTICHINI, Aldo. Organizing Effects of Testosterone and Economic Behavior: Not Just Risk Taking. Plos one, volume 6, Issue 12, December, 2011. BROCKNER, Joel. The Escalation of Commitment to a failing course of action: Toward theoretical progress. Academy of Management Review. Vol.17, no.1, pp.39-61, 1992. BURNHAM, C. Terence. High-testosterone men reject low ultimatum game offers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 274, 5 July, 2007. CHARNESS, Gary, GNNEZY, Uri. Strong Evidence for Gender Differences in Risk- Taking. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 83, pp. 50-58, 2012. COVAL, Joshua, D, SHHUMWAY, Tyler. Do Behavioral Biases Affect Prices? The Journal of Finance, Vol. LX, No 1, February, 2005. COATES, M. John, GURNELL, Mark, SARNYAI, Zoltan. From molecule to market: steroid hormones and financial risk-taking. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365, pp. 331-343, 5 de June, 2011. COATES, M. John, GURNELL, Mark, RUSTICHINI. Second-to-fourth digit ratio pre- dicts success among high-frequency financial traders. PNAS, vol.106, no.2, January, 13, 2009. COATES, J.M, HERBERT, J. Endogenous steroids and financial risk taking on a London trading floor. PNAS, vol.105, no.16, April, 22, 2008. COHEN-BENDAHAN, C.C. CELINA, VAN DE BEEK, Cornelieke, BERENBAUM, A. SHERI. Prenatal sex hormone effects on child and adult sex-typed behavior: methods and findings. Neuroscience and biobehavioral Review, 29, pp.353-384, 2005. DA SIVA, Sergio, BALDO, Dinóra, MATSUSHITA, Raul. Biological Correlates of the Allais Paradox. Applied Economics, 45.5, pp. 555-568, 2013. DAVIS, R. Larry, JOYCE, Patrick, ROELOFS, Matthew. My money or yours: house money payment effects. Experimental Economics, 13, pp. 189-205, 2010.
MANNING,T.John.; SCUTT,D.; WILSON, J.; LEWIS-JONES, D.I. The ratio of the 2nd and 4th digit length: a predictor of sperm numbers and concentrations of testosterone, luteinizing hormone and oestrogen. Human Reproduction, 13, p.3000-3004, 1998. MANNING, T. John. Digit Ratio: A Pointer to Fertility, Behavior and Health. Rutgers University Press, 2002. MANNING, J.T.; STEWART, A.; BUNDRED, P.E.; TRIVERS L.R. Sex and ethnic differences in 2nd to 4th digit ratio of children. Early Human Development, 80, p.161-168, 2004. MILLET, Kobe, DEWITTE, Siegfried. Second to fourth digit ratio and cooperative behavior. Biological Psychology. 71, pp.111-115, 2006. NEAVE, Nick, LAING, Sarah, FINK, Bernhard, MANNING, T. John. Second to fourth digit ratio, testosterone and perceived male dominance. Proc. R.Soc. Lond. B, 270, pp. 2167-2172,
ÖKTEN, Aysenur, KALYOUNCU, Mukaddes, YARIS, Nilgün. The ratio of second-and fourth-digit lengths and congenital adrenal hyperplasia due to 21-hydroxylase deficiency. Early Human Development. 70, pp.47-54, 2002. PEARSON, Matthew, SCHIPPER, C. Burkhard. The visible hand: ratio (2D:4D) and competitive bidding. Experimental Economics, 15, pp.510-529, 2012. SAPIENZA, Paola, ZINGALES, Luigi, MAESTRIPIERI, Dario. Gender differences in financial risk aversion and career choices are affected by testosterone. PNAS, Volume 106, no.36, pp. 15268-15273, September, 8, 2009. STAW, M. Barry. Knee-Deep in the Big Muddy: A Study of Escalating Commitment to a Chosen Course of Action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 16, pp. 27-44,
GROU, B.; TABAK, Benjamin M. Ambiguity Aversion and Illusion of Control: Ex- perimental Evidence in an Emerging Market. Journal of Behavioral Finance vol 9, pp: 22-29,
THALER, H. Richard. Mental Accounting Matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. V. 12, n.3, pp.183-206, 1999. THALER, H. Richard.; JOHNSON, J. Eric. Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: The effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Management Science. Vol.16, No.6, June, 1996. THALER, Richard.; Amos TVERSKY.; Daniel KAHNEMAN.; Alan SCHWARTZ. The effect of myopia and loss aversion on risk taking: an experimental test. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. Vol.112, No.2, pp. 647-661, 1997. TEIXEIRA, M. A, TABAK, BENJAMIN M. ; CAJUEIRO, DANIEL O. The 2D:4D ratio and Myopic Loss Aversion (MLA): An experimental investigation. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, v. 5, p. 81-84, 2015. VAN DEN BERGH, Bram, DEWITTE, Siegfried. Digit ratio (2D:4D) moderates the impact of sexual cues on men’s decisions in ultimatum games. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 22 August, 2006.
WEBER, Martin.; ZUCHEL Heiko. How Do Prior Outcomes Affect Risk Attitude? Comparing Escalation of Commitment and the House-Money Effect. Decision Analysis, Vol.2, No.1, pp. 30-43, March, 2005.
