Are Women More Risk-Averse Than Men?
"Women play it safe. Men take bold risks. That's why men lead, invest, and build more."
Women are somewhat more cautious than men on certain kinds of risk — gambling, driving speed, physical thrill. But on financial investment risk, the gap shrinks or disappears when you control for income, wealth, and financial literacy. And women's portfolios tend to *outperform* men's over time — not because they take less risk, but because they trade less often and overreact less to short-term news.
What the data says
-
Classic meta-analysis of 150 studies: men take more risks than women on average (d = 0.13), with largest effects in physical risk-taking and smallest or absent in financial decisions among similarly-resourced participants.
Byrnes, Miller & Schafer, Psychological Bulletin (1999) · 1999 · Meta-analysis of 150 studies
-
Analysis of 35,000 brokerage accounts: men traded 45% more often than women. Excess trading reduced men's net returns by 2.65 percentage points annually vs women's 1.72.
Barber & Odean, Quarterly Journal of Economics (2001) · 2001 · Longitudinal brokerage account analysis
-
Fidelity analysis of 5.2M accounts (2017): women outperformed men by an average of 0.4 percentage points annually, attributed to lower trading frequency and more consistent allocation.
Fidelity Investor Behavior Analysis (2017) · 2017 · Brokerage account analysis
-
When controlling for income, wealth, and financial literacy, the gender gap in investment risk-taking shrinks by 70% or more.
van Rooij, Lusardi & Alessie, Journal of Financial Economics (2011) · 2011 · Household survey
Where it came from
The evolutionary-psychology version of this stereotype (men as hunters, women as gatherers and nurturers requiring caution) is a 20th-century just-so story; anthropological evidence for strict gendered hunting divisions in pre-agricultural societies is contested. The modern stereotype was reinforced by early 20th-century investment marketing that framed markets as a male domain — then cited women's resulting lower participation as evidence they lacked risk tolerance.
What this means
Women trade less, panic less, and hold positions longer — behaviors often framed as 'risk aversion' that in practice resemble disciplined investing. When men and women have the same resources and financial knowledge, most of the risk gap disappears. What remains is partly real, partly a failure to measure risk correctly (frequency of trading is a form of risk).
Frequently asked
Are women more risk-averse in general?
Slightly, on average, across many domains — but the effect is small (d ≈ 0.13 per Byrnes et al. 1999), and it's dominated by physical risk-taking. Financial risk gaps are much smaller.
Do women actually invest more conservatively?
When matched for income and financial literacy, only marginally. The popular image of much-more-conservative female investors overstates a real but small effect.
Do women's portfolios underperform men's?
The opposite. Fidelity (2017) and Warwick Business School (2018) found women outperformed men on average — driven by lower trading frequency and more disciplined allocation.
Is overconfidence a male problem?
Yes — in financial contexts, robustly. Barber & Odean's landmark 2001 paper documented men's excessive trading driven by overconfidence, and the finding has replicated across markets and decades.
What explains the remaining gap?
Some combination of: lower average wealth (less buffer for risk), lower financial literacy (driven by access/socialization), and lower comfort with male-coded investment culture. Not a 'female nature' effect.