Gender and Social Preferences in the US: An Experimental Study
AbstractThis contribution provides evidence that social preferences differ by gender among United States college students. Tracking within-person choices over ten dictator exercises in which individuals choose one of three allocations of money between themselves and two other participants, this study precisely maps social preference types and identifies consistency of preferences within groups of roughly two-thirds of participants. Contrary to previous studies that identify a dominant social preference, this study' rigorous identification system reveals that other-regarding individuals are heterogeneous and almost evenly split between inequity aversion and social surplus maximization. But, even among individuals raised in a culture that stresses equal opportunity, there are gender differences. Women are substantially more likely than men to be inequity averters and less likely to be social surplus maximizers. However, a large majority of participants, both men and women, choose allocations consistent with compassion for the least well off.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Feminist Economics.
Volume (Year): 18 (2012)
Issue (Month): 1 (January)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/RFEC20
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty).
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.