Ambiguity and Gender Differences in Financial Decision Making: An Experimental Examination of Competence and Confidence Effects.

This paper reports the results of an experiment that brings together psychological measures of competence and overconfidence with laboratory economic measures of individual valuations of uncertainty. We examine the valuations of risky and ambiguous lotteries in a financial decision context. The experiment can be viewed in two parts. The first part replicates an experimental design reported by Heath and Tversky (1991) but within a financial market context. This part produces two measures: 1) competence, the perception of feeling knowledgeable or competent in an area and 2) overconfidence, the well documented result that many individuals overestimate their ability. These measures, together with an indicator of objective knowledge, were used to explain elicited certainty equivalents in the second part of the experiment. Certainty equivalents were elicited for lotteries that were contingent on the price movements of real stock and bond funds, the price changes of simulated virtual funds, and pure risk lotteries. These represent three different levels of uncertainty: two-sided ambiguity, one-sided ambiguity and pure risk. Our results show a significant relationship between individual overconfidence and competence measures and elicited values of lotteries in a financial decision context. Further, the interaction of overconfidence, competence and knowledge measures with gender produce nearly opposite effects.risk, ambiguity, overconfidence, gender, financial decision making, economic experiments

Classical invariantism and the puzzle of fallibilism

This paper revisits a puzzle that arises for theories of knowledge according to which one can know on the basis of merely inductive grounds. No matter how strong such theories require inductive grounds to be if a belief based on them is to qualify as knowledge, there are certain beliefs (namely, about the outcome of fair lotteries) that are based on even stronger inductive grounds, while, intuitively, they do not qualify as knowledge. This paper discusses what is often regarded as the most promising classical invariantist solution to the puzzle, namely, that beliefs about the outcomes of fair lotteries do not qualify as knowledge because they are too lucky to do so (or, relatedly, because they do not satisfy a safety condition on knowledge), while other beliefs based on potentially weaker inductive grounds are not too lucky (or, relatedly, because they are safe). A case is presented that shows that this solution to the puzzle is actually not viable. It is argued that there is no obvious alternative solution in sight and that therefore the puzzle still awaits a classical invariantist solution

Critical Perspectives Sustainability of the on South African Civil Society Sector

This report presents the findings of a research and advocacy process that included consultative workshops with CSOs in all nine of South Africa's provinces, interviews with CSOs, politicians, government departments, the NLB, NDA and local funders. The report highlights the successes and ongoing problems associated with the NLB and the NDA. It locates them within a broader context of government unevenness, inefficiency and corruption