IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ratsoc/v31y2019i3p337-353.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gender effects and cooperation in collective action: A laboratory experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Anastasia Peshkovskaya

    (Laboratory of Experimental Methods in Cognitive and Social Sciences, Tomsk State University, Russia; Mental Health Research Institute, Tomsk National Research Medical Center, Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia)

  • Tatiana Babkina

    (Institute of Education, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Russia; Department of Control and Applied Mathematics, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (State University), Russia)

  • Mikhail Myagkov

    (Laboratory of Experimental Methods in Cognitive and Social Sciences, Tomsk State University, Russia; Institute of Education, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Russia; Department of Political Science, University of Oregon, USA)

Abstract

Numerous researches have indicated that men’s and women’s cooperation varied from no differences to significant differences under the influence of different contextual characteristics. In this study, we investigated how social factors together with a gender composition of a group affected gender differences in cooperation. We found that mixed-sex groups were the most effective in cooperation. At the same time, cooperation level in same-sex groups varied significantly. Besides, in same-sex groups, men demonstrated a higher level of trust and gratitude than women. Among women, in same-sex groups, a tendency toward mutual distrust and competition was revealed more often than among men.

Suggested Citation

  • Anastasia Peshkovskaya & Tatiana Babkina & Mikhail Myagkov, 2019. "Gender effects and cooperation in collective action: A laboratory experiment," Rationality and Society, , vol. 31(3), pages 337-353, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ratsoc:v:31:y:2019:i:3:p:337-353
    DOI: 10.1177/1043463119858788
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1043463119858788
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1043463119858788?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leonardo Becchetti & Giacomo Degli Antoni & Marco Faillo & Luigi Mittone, 2011. "The economic value of a meeting: Evidence from an investment game experiment," Rationality and Society, , vol. 23(4), pages 403-426, November.
    2. Greig, Fiona & Bohnet, Iris, 2009. "Exploring gendered behavior in the field with experiments: Why public goods are provided by women in a Nairobi slum," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(1-2), pages 1-9, May.
    3. Elliot T Berkman & Evgeniya Lukinova & Ivan Menshikov & Mikhail Myagkov, 2015. "Sociality as a Natural Mechanism of Public Goods Provision," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-18, March.
    4. Schwieren, Christiane & Sutter, Matthias, 2008. "Trust in cooperation or ability? An experimental study on gender differences," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(3), pages 494-497, June.
    5. Eckel, Catherine C & Grossman, Philip J, 2001. "Chivalry and Solidarity in Ultimatum Games," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(2), pages 171-188, April.
    6. Fischbacher, Urs & Gachter, Simon & Fehr, Ernst, 2001. "Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 397-404, June.
    7. Rick L. Riolo & Michael D. Cohen & Robert Axelrod, 2001. "Evolution of cooperation without reciprocity," Nature, Nature, vol. 414(6862), pages 441-443, November.
    8. Martin A. Nowak & Karl Sigmund, 1998. "Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring," Nature, Nature, vol. 393(6685), pages 573-577, June.
    9. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 2008. "Differences in the Economic Decisions of Men and Women: Experimental Evidence," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 57, pages 509-519, Elsevier.
    10. M.A. Nowak & K. Sigmund, 1998. "Evolution of Indirect Reciprocity by Image Scoring/ The Dynamics of Indirect Reciprocity," Working Papers ir98040, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    11. Charness, Gary & Rustichini, Aldo, 2011. "Gender differences in cooperation with group membership," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 77-85, May.
    12. Ellingsen, Tore & Johannesson, Magnus & Mollerstrom, Johanna & Munkhammar, Sara, 2013. "Gender differences in social framing effects," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 118(3), pages 470-472.
    13. Anastasia Peshkovskaya & Tatiana Babkina & Mikhail Myagkov, 2018. "Social context reveals gender differences in cooperative behavior," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 213-225, July.
    14. Solnick, Sara J, 2001. "Gender Differences in the Ultimatum Game," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(2), pages 189-200, April.
    15. Ben-Ner, Avner & Putterman, Louis & Kong, Fanmin & Magan, Dan, 2004. "Reciprocity in a two-part dictator game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 333-352, March.
    16. Brent Simpson, 2006. "Social Identity and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas," Rationality and Society, , vol. 18(4), pages 443-470, November.
    17. Anastasia G Peshkovskaya & Tatiana S Babkina & Mikhail G Myagkov & Ivan A Kulikov & Ksenia V Ekshova & Kyle Harriff, 2017. "The socialization effect on decision making in the Prisoner's Dilemma game: An eye-tracking study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-15, April.
    18. Jelena Grujić & Constanza Fosco & Lourdes Araujo & José A Cuesta & Angel Sánchez, 2010. "Social Experiments in the Mesoscale: Humans Playing a Spatial Prisoner's Dilemma," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(11), pages 1-9, November.
    19. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Silva Larson & Anne (Giger)-Dray & Tina Cornioley & Manithaythip Thephavanh & Phomma Thammavong & Sisavan Vorlasan & John G. Connell & Magnus Moglia & Peter Case & Kim S. Alexander & Pascal Perez, 2020. "A Game-Based Approach to Exploring Gender Differences in Smallholder Decisions to Change Farming Practices: White Rice Production in Laos," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-22, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anastasia Peshkovskaya & Tatiana Babkina & Mikhail Myagkov, 2018. "Social context reveals gender differences in cooperative behavior," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 213-225, July.
    2. Marcus Dittrich & Andreas Knabe & Kristina Leipold, 2014. "Gender Differences In Experimental Wage Negotiations," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 52(2), pages 862-873, April.
    3. Elliot T Berkman & Evgeniya Lukinova & Ivan Menshikov & Mikhail Myagkov, 2015. "Sociality as a Natural Mechanism of Public Goods Provision," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-18, March.
    4. Philip J. Grossman & Mana Komai & James E. Jensen, 2015. "Leadership and gender in groups: An experiment," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 48(1), pages 368-388, February.
    5. Siqi Ma & Li Hao & John A. Aloysius, 2021. "Women are an Advantage in Supply Chain Collaboration and Efficiency," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(5), pages 1427-1441, May.
    6. Anastasia G Peshkovskaya & Tatiana S Babkina & Mikhail G Myagkov & Ivan A Kulikov & Ksenia V Ekshova & Kyle Harriff, 2017. "The socialization effect on decision making in the Prisoner's Dilemma game: An eye-tracking study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-15, April.
    7. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    8. Becchetti, Leonardo & Degli Antoni, Giacomo & Ottone, Stefania & Solferino, Nazaria, 2013. "Allocation criteria under task performance: The gendered preference for protection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 96-111.
    9. Azmat, Ghazala & Petrongolo, Barbara, 2014. "Gender and the labor market: What have we learned from field and lab experiments?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 32-40.
    10. Furtner, Nadja C. & Kocher, Martin G. & Martinsson, Peter & Matzat, Dominik & Wollbrant, Conny, 2016. "Gender and cooperative preferences on five continents," Discussion Papers in Economics 30226, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    11. Cappelen, Alexander W. & Falch, Ranveig & Tungodden, Bertil, 2019. "The Boy Crisis: Experimental Evidence on the Acceptance of Males Falling Behind," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 6/2019, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics, revised 01 Mar 2019.
    12. Furtner, Nadja C. & Kocher, Martin G. & Martinsson, Peter & Matzat, Dominik & Wollbrant, Conny, 2021. "Gender and cooperative preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 39-48.
    13. Julija Michailova & Christoph Bühren, 2015. "Money priming and social behavior of natural groups in simple bargaining and dilemma experiments," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201530, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    14. Huang, Jennie & Low, Corinne, 2022. "The myth of the male negotiator: Gender’s effect on negotiation strategies and outcomes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 517-532.
    15. García-Gallego, Aurora & Georgantzís, Nikolaos & Jaramillo-Gutiérrez, Ainhoa, 2012. "Gender differences in ultimatum games: Despite rather than due to risk attitudes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 42-49.
    16. Demiral, Elif E. & Mollerstrom, Johanna, 2020. "The entitlement effect in the ultimatum game – does it even exist?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 341-352.
    17. McGee, Peter & Constantinides, Stelios, 2013. "Repeated play and gender in the ultimatum game," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 121-126.
    18. Avner Ben-Ner & Famin Kong & Louis Putterman, "undated". "Share and Share Alike? Intelligence, Socialization, Personality, and Gender-Pairing as Determinants of Giving," Working Papers 1002, Human Resources and Labor Studies, University of Minnesota (Twin Cities Campus).
    19. Mario Daniele Amore & Orsola Garofalo & Alessandro Minichilli, 2014. "Gender Interactions Within the Family Firm," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(5), pages 1083-1097, May.
    20. Daniel Jones & Sera Linardi, 2014. "Wallflowers: Experimental Evidence of an Aversion to Standing Out," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(7), pages 1757-1771, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:ratsoc:v:31:y:2019:i:3:p:337-353. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.