IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cex/dpaper/2010004.html

Are Women More Sensitive to the Decision-Making Context?

Author

Listed:
  • Luis Miller

    (Centre for Experimental Social Sciences, Nuffield College, University of Oxford)

  • Paloma Ubeda

    (LINEEX, ERI-CESS, University of Valencia)

Abstract

We conduct an experiment to assess gender differences across different economic contexts. Specifically, we test whether women are more sensitive to the decision-making context in situations in which different fairness principles can be used. We find that women adopt more often than men conditional fairness principles that require information about the context. Furthermore, while most men adopt only one decision principle, most women switch between multiple decision principles. These results complement and reinforce Croson and Gneezy's organizing explanation of greater context sensitivity of women.

Suggested Citation

  • Luis Miller & Paloma Ubeda, 2010. "Are Women More Sensitive to the Decision-Making Context?," Discussion Papers 2010004, University of Oxford, Nuffield College.
    • Handle: RePEc:cex:dpaper:2010004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://cess-wb.nuff.ox.ac.uk/documents/DP2010/CESS_DP2010_004.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Are Women More Sensitive to the Decision-Making Context?
      by maximorossi in NEP-LTV blog on 2010-12-09 20:23:45

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Joo Young Jeon, 2013. "Altruism, Anticipation, and Gender," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 13-06, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    2. Smriti Sharma, 2015. "Gender and Distributional Preferences: Experimental Evidence from India," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2015-062, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    3. Abou-El-Sood, Heba, 2021. "Board gender diversity, power, and bank risk taking," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    4. Hyoji Kwon & Yukihiko Funaki, 2022. "Do Strict Egalitarians Really Exist?," Working Papers 2206, Waseda University, Faculty of Political Science and Economics.
    5. Kim, Duk Gyoo & Riegel, Max, 2025. "Rank versus inequality—Does gender composition matter?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    6. Oliver Fabel & Sandra Mauser & Yingchao Zhang, 2024. "Performance contests and merit pay with empathic employees," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 45(1), pages 353-372, January.
    7. Jochen Hundsdoerfer & Eva Matthaei, 2022. "Gender Discriminatory Taxes, Fairness Perception, and Labor Supply," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 78(1-2), pages 156-207.
    8. Fries, Tilman & Gneezy, Uri & Kajackaite, Agne & Parra, Daniel, 2021. "Observability and lying," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 132-149.
    9. Sara Schmid & Rudolf Vetschera & Judit Lienert, 2021. "Testing Fairness Principles for Public Environmental Infrastructure Decisions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 611-640, June.
    10. Bieberstein, Frauke von & Jaussi, Stefanie & Vogel, Claudia, 2020. "Challenge-seeking and the gender wage gap: A lab-in-the-field experiment with cleaning personnel," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 251-277.
    11. Khachaturyan, Marianna & Czap, Natalia V., 2016. "Different Strokes for Different Folks: Gender and Emotions in an Environmental Game," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 5(4).
    12. Baruk Agnieszka Izabela & Goliszek Anna, 2018. "Associations with the university as an employer — opinions of women and men representing young potential employees," Marketing of Scientific and Research Organizations, Sciendo, vol. 28(2), pages 19-41, June.
    13. Hundsdoerfer, Jochen & Matthaei, Eva Kristina, 2020. "Gender discriminatory taxes, fairness perception, and labor supply," Discussion Papers 2020/6, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.
    14. Sharma, Smriti, 2015. "Gender and distributional preferences: Experimental evidence from India," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 113-123.
    15. Bejarano, Hernán & Gillet, Joris & Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael, 2021. "Trust and trustworthiness after negative random shocks," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    16. Alice Guerra & Emanuela Randon & Antonello E. Scorcu, 2022. "Gender and deception: Evidence from survey data among adolescent gamblers," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(4), pages 618-645, November.
    17. Mara Olekalns & Carol Kulik & Lin Chew, 2014. "Sweet Little Lies: Social Context and the Use of Deception in Negotiation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 120(1), pages 13-26, March.
    18. Ismael Rodriguez-Lara & Luis Moreno-Garrido, 2012. "Modeling Inequity Aversion in a Dictator Game with Production," Games, MDPI, vol. 3(4), pages 1-12, October.
    19. Ismael Rodriguez-Lara, 2015. "An experimental study of gender differences in distributive justice," Cuadernos de Economía - Spanish Journal of Economics and Finance, Asociación Cuadernos de Economía, vol. 38(106), pages 27-36, Abril.
    20. Sharma, Smriti, 2015. "Gender and distributional preferences: Experimental evidence from India," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 113-123.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cex:dpaper:2010004. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wojtek Przepiorka The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Wojtek Przepiorka to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nceoxuk.html .

    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.