Gender differences and framing in risk preferences

Last registered on February 10, 2026

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Gender differences and framing in risk preferences
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0017190
Initial registration date
February 09, 2026

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
February 10, 2026, 6:45 AM EST

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
University of the Balearic Islands

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
PI Affiliation
PI Affiliation

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2026-02-15
End date
2027-03-01
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
This study investigates whether gender differences in risk attitudes emerge only under conditions that trigger intuitive, heuristic-based thinking. Building on dual-process theory (Kahneman & Tversky), we propose that in the absence of framing cues, both men and women rely on analytic, system-2 reasoning and therefore demonstrate comparable levels of risk aversion. However, when even minimal but relevant framing is introduced, decision-makers shift toward system-1 processing, making intuitive judgments shaped by heuristics. Prior research suggests that heuristic tendencies may differ by gender, potentially leading to divergent choices under framed conditions. Drawing on literature examining gender-specific cognitive biases and heuristic use, we test whether framing moderates the relationship between gender and risk behavior. The findings contribute to understanding the cognitive mechanisms behind gendered decision-making, offering theoretical value for behavioral economics and practical implications for policy design, entrepreneurial decision contexts, and financial communication strategies.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Espinosa, Maria Paz et al. 2026. "Gender differences and framing in risk preferences." AEA RCT Registry. February 10. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.17190-1.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
The experiment consists of a series of incentivized lottery–choice tasks designed to measure risk preferences under different framing conditions. Participants make 10 decisions in a table, choosing between two payoff options in each row. Each option specifies a lottery with outcomes realized over four consecutive periods, and one decision is randomly selected for payment.

Participants are randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions:

1. Baseline Condition (No Frame / Neutral Risk Task)

Participants choose between Option A and Option B in each of the 10 decisions.

Each option consists of a lottery with specified probabilities and payoff vectors across four periods.

No contextual or emotional framing is provided; options are presented in purely numerical and neutral terms.

This condition is designed to induce analytical, System-2 reasoning.

2. Treatment 1 (Entrepreneurship Frame – Entrepreneurship Highlighted as Risky Option)

Participants choose between being an “employee” or an “entrepreneur.”

Entrepreneur option: variable payoffs across the four periods depending on investment success.


Employee option: safe and constant payoffs across all periods, contingent on firm profitability.


This treatment frames risky choices as entrepreneurial activity and safe choices as employment, aiming to trigger intuitive, heuristic-driven System-1 processing.

3. Treatment 2 (Employeet Frame – Employee Highlighted as Risky Option)

Participants again choose between being an “employee” or an “entrepreneur.”
However, the payoff structure is reversed relative to Treatment 1:

Employee option: stochastic payoff vector depending on firm performance

Entrepreneur option: constant payoff across periods

This treatment presents employment as the riskier choice and entrepreneurship as the safer one, again aiming to activate heuristic-driven System-1 reasoning via framing.
Intervention Start Date
2026-03-15
Intervention End Date
2027-03-01

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Gender, risk aversion
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
This study investigates decision-making under risk using a series of incentivized choice tasks. Participants complete 10 decisions, each requiring a choice between two options that yield monetary payoffs determined by lotteries. Payoffs are expressed in ECU and converted to euros at the end of the experiment. One decision is selected at random for payment.

The core experimental manipulation consists of three between-subject conditions, to which participants are randomly assigned:

Baseline (Neutral Presentation)
Participants choose between two unlabeled lottery options presented in a neutral, numerical format.

Treatment 1 (Entrepreneurship vs. Employment Frame A)
Participants choose between two options labeled “entrepreneur” and “employee.” One option provides variable outcomes based on investment success, while the other provides constant outcomes based on firm conditions.

Treatment 2 (Entrepreneurship vs. Employment Frame B)
Participants again choose between options labeled “entrepreneur” and “employee,” but the payoff structures are reversed relative to Treatment 1. One option provides variable payoffs tied to firm conditions, and the other provides constant outcomes linked to investment results.

The probability structure and expected values are held constant across conditions; only the contextual framing and interpretation of the options differ. All participants face identical numerical payoff values.

The task is implemented individually and anonymously. Participants receive real monetary compensation based on their choices and chance outcomes.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
computer
Randomization Unit
Individual level
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
3 treatments with 100 randomly assigned individuals each
Sample size: planned number of observations
300
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
100
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
University of the Balearic Islands
IRB Approval Date
2025-07-15
IRB Approval Number
052CER25