Table 2.
Regression of risk aversion on digit ratio
| Whole sample |
Only men |
Only women |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | II | III | IV | V | VI | VII | |
| Average digit ratio | 41.766 | 9.544 | −2.370 | −37.161 | −43.285 | 79.034 | 86.532 |
| (32.215) | (32.523) | (36.832) | (40.959) | (42.457) | (50.192) | (68.884) | |
| Gender: Female = 1 | 7.544*** | 9.575*** | |||||
| (2.615) | (3.477) | ||||||
| Testosterone (pg/mL) | 0.037 | 0.051 | −0.019 | ||||
| (0.044) | (0.050) | (0.094) | |||||
| Observations | 181 | 181 | 175 | 116 | 112 | 65 | 63 |
| R-squared | 0.007 | 0.052 | 0.054 | 0.006 | 0.017 | 0.024 | 0.021 |
This table shows Ordinary Least Squares regressions of the premium a subject was willing to pay to avoid a 50/50 lottery $0/$200 on the 2D:4D digit ratio. Risk aversion is positively correlated with the digit ratio. Heteroschedasticity robust standard errors are reported in brackets.
* Means significantly different from zero at the 10% level (two-tail t test),
** at the 5% level, and
*** at the 1% level.