Gender differences in risk attitudes

L. Warshawsky-Livne, L. Novack, A. B. Rosen, Stephen Downs, J. Shkolnik-Inbar, J. S. Pliskin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: A rich literature has documented gender-based differences in health care utilization and outcomes. The role of risk attitude in explaining the variations is limited at best. This study examines gender differences in health utilities and risk attitudes.

Methodology: Data on 13 health states were collected from 629 students via questionnaires at the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in 2005. From each respondent, we assessed utilities for a subset of health states, using Time Trade-Off and Standard Gamble. A risk attitude coefficient was calculated for each respondent as a function of their utilities for all outcomes assessed. The risk coefficient derived from a closed-form utility model for men was compared to that of women using the t-statistic.

Findings: There was a statistically significant difference in the risk attitudes of men and women. Men had a concave utility function, representing risk aversion, while women had a near linear utility function, suggesting that women are risk neutral.

Practical/social implications: Differences in risk attitude may be an important contributor to gender-based disparities in health services utilization. More research is needed to assess its full impact on decisionmaking in health care.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)123-140
Number of pages18
JournalAdvances in Health Economics and Health Services Research
Volume24
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

gender-specific factors
Health
health
utilization
Patient Acceptance of Health Care
health care
gender
Health Services
health service
statistics
Students
Delivery of Health Care
questionnaire
methodology
Research
Surveys and Questionnaires
student

Keywords

  • Gender
  • Risk attitude
  • Risk aversion
  • Standard gamble
  • Time trade-off
  • Utility function

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Health(social science)

Cite this

Warshawsky-Livne, L., Novack, L., Rosen, A. B., Downs, S., Shkolnik-Inbar, J., & Pliskin, J. S. (2014). Gender differences in risk attitudes. Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research, 24, 123-140. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0731-219920140000024003

Gender differences in risk attitudes. / Warshawsky-Livne, L.; Novack, L.; Rosen, A. B.; Downs, Stephen; Shkolnik-Inbar, J.; Pliskin, J. S.

In: Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research, Vol. 24, 2014, p. 123-140.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Warshawsky-Livne, L, Novack, L, Rosen, AB, Downs, S, Shkolnik-Inbar, J & Pliskin, JS 2014, 'Gender differences in risk attitudes', Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research, vol. 24, pp. 123-140. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0731-219920140000024003
Warshawsky-Livne, L. ; Novack, L. ; Rosen, A. B. ; Downs, Stephen ; Shkolnik-Inbar, J. ; Pliskin, J. S. / Gender differences in risk attitudes. In: Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research. 2014 ; Vol. 24. pp. 123-140.
@article{06965b63aed84086b1ce96171c6903ad,
title = "Gender differences in risk attitudes",
abstract = "Purpose: A rich literature has documented gender-based differences in health care utilization and outcomes. The role of risk attitude in explaining the variations is limited at best. This study examines gender differences in health utilities and risk attitudes.Methodology: Data on 13 health states were collected from 629 students via questionnaires at the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in 2005. From each respondent, we assessed utilities for a subset of health states, using Time Trade-Off and Standard Gamble. A risk attitude coefficient was calculated for each respondent as a function of their utilities for all outcomes assessed. The risk coefficient derived from a closed-form utility model for men was compared to that of women using the t-statistic.Findings: There was a statistically significant difference in the risk attitudes of men and women. Men had a concave utility function, representing risk aversion, while women had a near linear utility function, suggesting that women are risk neutral.Practical/social implications: Differences in risk attitude may be an important contributor to gender-based disparities in health services utilization. More research is needed to assess its full impact on decisionmaking in health care.",
keywords = "Gender, Risk attitude, Risk aversion, Standard gamble, Time trade-off, Utility function",
author = "L. Warshawsky-Livne and L. Novack and Rosen, {A. B.} and Stephen Downs and J. Shkolnik-Inbar and Pliskin, {J. S.}",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1108/S0731-219920140000024003",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "123--140",
journal = "Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research",
issn = "0731-2199",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Gender differences in risk attitudes

AU - Warshawsky-Livne, L.

AU - Novack, L.

AU - Rosen, A. B.

AU - Downs, Stephen

AU - Shkolnik-Inbar, J.

AU - Pliskin, J. S.

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Purpose: A rich literature has documented gender-based differences in health care utilization and outcomes. The role of risk attitude in explaining the variations is limited at best. This study examines gender differences in health utilities and risk attitudes.Methodology: Data on 13 health states were collected from 629 students via questionnaires at the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in 2005. From each respondent, we assessed utilities for a subset of health states, using Time Trade-Off and Standard Gamble. A risk attitude coefficient was calculated for each respondent as a function of their utilities for all outcomes assessed. The risk coefficient derived from a closed-form utility model for men was compared to that of women using the t-statistic.Findings: There was a statistically significant difference in the risk attitudes of men and women. Men had a concave utility function, representing risk aversion, while women had a near linear utility function, suggesting that women are risk neutral.Practical/social implications: Differences in risk attitude may be an important contributor to gender-based disparities in health services utilization. More research is needed to assess its full impact on decisionmaking in health care.

AB - Purpose: A rich literature has documented gender-based differences in health care utilization and outcomes. The role of risk attitude in explaining the variations is limited at best. This study examines gender differences in health utilities and risk attitudes.Methodology: Data on 13 health states were collected from 629 students via questionnaires at the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in 2005. From each respondent, we assessed utilities for a subset of health states, using Time Trade-Off and Standard Gamble. A risk attitude coefficient was calculated for each respondent as a function of their utilities for all outcomes assessed. The risk coefficient derived from a closed-form utility model for men was compared to that of women using the t-statistic.Findings: There was a statistically significant difference in the risk attitudes of men and women. Men had a concave utility function, representing risk aversion, while women had a near linear utility function, suggesting that women are risk neutral.Practical/social implications: Differences in risk attitude may be an important contributor to gender-based disparities in health services utilization. More research is needed to assess its full impact on decisionmaking in health care.

KW - Gender

KW - Risk attitude

KW - Risk aversion

KW - Standard gamble

KW - Time trade-off

KW - Utility function

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84908354671&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84908354671&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1108/S0731-219920140000024003

DO - 10.1108/S0731-219920140000024003

M3 - Article

VL - 24

SP - 123

EP - 140

JO - Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research

JF - Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research

SN - 0731-2199

ER -