IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v145y2018icp294-305.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Group gender composition and economic decision-making: Evidence from the Kallystée business game

Author

Listed:
  • Lamiraud, Karine
  • Vranceanu, Radu

Abstract

This paper analyses data collected in 2012 and 2013 at the ESSEC Business School from Kallystée, a proprietary mass-attendance business game. Company boards are simulated by teams of five students selected at random. The design manipulates the gender composition of the boards to allow for all possible gender combinations. Data show that all-men and mixed teams with four women perform significantly better than all-women teams. However, when controlling for the average tolerance to risk score of the teams, the performance advantage of all-men teams vanishes, while the team-specific economic performance of teams with four women is still positive and strong. Teams with four women take more risks than the team tolerance to risk score would predict, which suggests some form of team specific action bias or risk-shift.

Suggested Citation

  • Lamiraud, Karine & Vranceanu, Radu, 2018. "Group gender composition and economic decision-making: Evidence from the Kallystée business game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 294-305.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:145:y:2018:i:c:p:294-305
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2017.09.020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268117302615
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jingjing Zhang & Marco Casari, 2012. "How Groups Reach Agreement In Risky Choices: An Experiment," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 50(2), pages 502-515, April.
    2. David A. Matsa & Amalia R. Miller, 2013. "A Female Style in Corporate Leadership? Evidence from Quotas," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(3), pages 136-169, July.
    3. Berge, Lars Ivar Oppedal & Juniwaty, Kartika Sari & Sekei, Linda Helgesson, 2016. "Gender composition and group dynamics: Evidence from a laboratory experiment with microfinance clients," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PA), pages 1-20.
    4. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    5. Sander Hoogendoorn & Hessel Oosterbeek & Mirjam van Praag, 2013. "The Impact of Gender Diversity on the Performance of Business Teams: Evidence from a Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(7), pages 1514-1528, July.
    6. Morone, Andrea & Temerario, Tiziana, 2016. "Preferences over social risk: does (group) size matter?," EconStor Preprints 147413, ZBW - German National Library of Economics.
    7. Bar-Eli, Michael & Azar, Ofer H. & Ritov, Ilana & Keidar-Levin, Yael & Schein, Galit, 2007. "Action bias among elite soccer goalkeepers: The case of penalty kicks," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 606-621, October.
    8. Alison L. Booth & Patrick Nolen, 2012. "Gender differences in risk behaviour: does nurture matter?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 122(558), pages 56-78, February.
    9. Antonio Filippin & Paolo Crosetto, 2016. "A Reconsideration of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(11), pages 3138-3160, November.
    10. Ghazala Azmat, 2014. "Gender diversity in teams," IZA World of Labor, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), pages 1-29, May.
    11. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 2008. "Men, Women and Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier.
    12. Jasmin Joecks & Kerstin Pull & Karin Vetter, 2013. "Gender Diversity in the Boardroom and Firm Performance: What Exactly Constitutes a “Critical Mass?”," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 118(1), pages 61-72, November.
    13. Cynthia Bansak & Mary Graham & Allan Zebedee, 2011. "The effects of gender composition of senior management on the economic fallout," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(16), pages 1603-1607.
    14. Adams, Renée B. & Ferreira, Daniel, 2009. "Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 291-309, November.
    15. Kenneth R. Ahern & Amy K. Dittmar, 2012. "The Changing of the Boards: The Impact on Firm Valuation of Mandated Female Board Representation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 127(1), pages 137-197.
    16. Peter Kuhn & Marie Claire Villeval, 2015. "Are Women More Attracted to Co‐operation Than Men?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 125(582), pages 115-140, February.
    17. Patt, Anthony & Zeckhauser, Richard, 2000. "Action Bias and Environmental Decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 45-72, July.
    18. Renate Schubert, 1999. "Financial Decision-Making: Are Women Really More Risk-Averse?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(2), pages 381-385, May.
    19. Jose Apesteguia & Ghazala Azmat & Nagore Iriberri, 2012. "The Impact of Gender Composition on Team Performance and Decision Making: Evidence from the Field," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 78-93, January.
    20. repec:iza:izawol:journl:y:2014:p:29 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Marielle Brunette & Laure Cabantous & Stéphane Couture, 2015. "Are individuals more risk and ambiguity averse in a group environment or alone? Results from an experimental study," Post-Print hal-01189933, HAL.
    22. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2008. "Forecasting Risk Attitudes: An Experimental Study Using Actual and Forecast Gamble Choices," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-01, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    23. Ferdinand M. Vieider & Mathieu Lefebvre & Ranoua Bouchouicha & Thorsten Chmura & Rustamdjan Hakimov & Michal Krawczyk & Peter Martinsson, 2015. "Common Components Of Risk And Uncertainty Attitudes Across Contexts And Domains: Evidence From 30 Countries," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 13(3), pages 421-452, June.
    24. Morone, Andrea & Temerario, Tiziana, 2016. "Group preferences over social risk: does (group) size matter?," MPRA Paper 74949, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    25. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    26. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri, 2012. "Strong Evidence for Gender Differences in Risk Taking," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 50-58.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Team decision; Gender studies; Risk-taking; Business game; Performance; Governance;

    JEL classification:

    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • L25 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Firm Performance
    • M14 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - Corporate Culture; Diversity; Social Responsibility

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eee:jeborg:v:145:y:2018:i:c:p:294-305. See general 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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.