IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/esi/discus/2002-14.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

I will survive! -- Gender discrimination in a household saving decisions experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Susanne Büchner
  • Dennis A. V. Dittrich

Abstract

We investigate the gender specific intertemporal allocation behavior of spouses with different deterministic life expectations in an experiment where the gen- der of one's partner is known. In each period of their life both partners propose a consumption level one of which is then randomly implemented. To allow for learning one experiences many "lives". Participants achieve a rather high degree of optimality that does not change over time. Indepen- dent of the own gender a participant is nicer to women and acts more selfishly if the partner is a man. Participants are not aware of their discriminating behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Susanne Büchner & Dennis A. V. Dittrich, 2002. "I will survive! -- Gender discrimination in a household saving decisions experiment," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2002-14, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    • Handle: RePEc:esi:discus:2002-14
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: ftp://papers.econ.mpg.de/esi/discussionpapers/2002-14.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chaim Fershtman & Uri Gneezy, 2001. "Discrimination in a Segmented Society: An Experimental Approach," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(1), pages 351-377.
    2. Martin Browning, 2000. "The Saving Behaviour of a Two‐person Household," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 102(2), pages 235-251, June.
    3. repec:bla:scandj:v:102:y:2000:i:2:p:235-51 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. James Andreoni & Lise Vesterlund, 2001. "Which is the Fair Sex? Gender Differences in Altruism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(1), pages 293-312.
    5. Manser, Marilyn & Brown, Murray, 1980. "Marriage and Household Decision-Making: A Bargaining Analysis," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 21(1), pages 31-44, February.
    6. Matthew Rabin, 2000. "Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1281-1292, September.
    7. Meier, Katja & Kirchler, Erich & Hubert, Angela-Christian, 1999. "Savings and investment decisions within private households: Spouses' dominance in decisions on various forms of investment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 20(5), pages 499-519, October.
    8. repec:bla:econom:v:69:y:2002:i:273:p:93-111 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Vital Anderhuba & Dennis A. V. Dittrich & Werner Güth & Nadege Marchandd, "undated". "Interpersonal allocation behavior in a household saving experiment," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2002-02, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    10. Bolton, Gary E. & Katok, Elena, 1995. "An experimental test for gender differences in beneficent behavior," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 48(3-4), pages 287-292, June.
    11. Corfman, Kim P & Lehmann, Donald R, 1987. "Models of Cooperative Group Decision-Making and Relative Influence: An Experimental Investigation of Family Purchase Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, June.
    12. Chen, Zhiqi & Woolley, Frances, 2001. "A Cournot-Nash Model of Family Decision Making," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(474), pages 722-748, October.
    13. Shelley A. Phipps & Peter S. Burton, 1998. "What’s Mine is Yours? The Influence of Male and Female Incomes on Patterns of Household Expenditure," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 65(260), pages 599-613, November.
    14. Dufwenberg, Martin & Muren, Astri, 2002. "Discrimination by Gender and Social Distance," Research Papers in Economics 2002:2, Stockholm University, Department of Economics.
    15. Ortmann, Andreas & Tichy, Lisa K., 1999. "Gender differences in the laboratory: evidence from prisoner's dilemma games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 327-339, July.
    16. Shelly Lundberg & Robert A. Pollak, 1996. "Bargaining and Distribution in Marriage," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 10(4), pages 139-158, Fall.
    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. Vital Anderhuba & Dennis A. V. Dittrich & Werner Güth & Nadege Marchandd, "undated". "Interpersonal allocation behavior in a household saving experiment," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2002-02, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    2. Victoria Busch & Svenn-Åge Dahl & Dennis Dittrich, 2009. "An empirical study of age discrimination in Norway and Germany," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(5), pages 633-651.
    3. Tom Lane, 2015. "Discrimination in the laboratory: a meta-analysis," Discussion Papers 2015-03, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.

    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. Vital Anderhuba & Dennis A. V. Dittrich & Werner Güth & Nadege Marchandd, "undated". "Interpersonal allocation behavior in a household saving experiment," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2002-02, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    2. Dittrich, Dennis A.V. & Büchner, Susanne & Kulesz, Micaela M., 2015. "Dynamic repeated random dictatorship and gender discrimination," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 81-90.
    3. Laurens CHERCHYE & Thomas DEMUYNCK & Bram DE ROCK, 2010. "Noncooperative household consumption with caring," Working Papers of Department of Economics, Leuven ces10.34, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Economics, Leuven.
    4. Miriam Beblo & Denis Beninger, 2017. "Do husbands and wives pool their incomes? A couple experiment," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 779-805, September.
    5. Ashraf, Nava & Bohnet, Iris & Piankov, Nikita, 2003. "Is Trust a Bad Investment?," Working Paper Series rwp03-047, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    6. Xu, Zeyu, 2007. "A survey on intra-household models and evidence," MPRA Paper 3763, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Dufwenberg, Martin & Muren, Astri, 2003. "Gender in Committees," Research Papers in Economics 2003:6, Stockholm University, Department of Economics.
    8. Leora Friedberg & Anthony Webb, 2006. "Determinants and Consequences of Bargaining Power in Households," NBER Working Papers 12367, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Dufwenberg, Martin & Muren, Astri, 2006. "Generosity, anonymity, gender," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 42-49, September.
    10. Hikaru Ogawa, 2005. "The Distribution of Household Income in Marriage," Australian Journal of Labour Economics (AJLE), Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre (BCEC), Curtin Business School, vol. 8(3), pages 261-275, September.
    11. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    12. Matthias Keese, 2011. "Thrifty Wives and Lavish Husbands? – Bargaining Power and Financial Dicisions in Germany," Ruhr Economic Papers 0258, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.
    13. Ainhoa Jaramillo Gutiérrez & Nikolaos Georgantzis & Aurora García Gallego & Miguel Ginés Vilar, 2007. "Cultural And Risk-Related Determinants Of Gender Differences In Ultimatum Bargaining," Working Papers. Serie AD 2007-08, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    14. Georg-Levi Gayle & Limor Golan & Mehmet A. Soytas, "undated". "Estimating the Returns to Parental Time Investment in Children Using a Life Cycle Dynastic Model," GSIA Working Papers 2011-E18, Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business.
    15. Säve-Söderbergh, Jenny, 2005. "Who is Willing to Let Ethics Guide His Economic Decision-Making? Evidence from Individual Investments in Ethical Funds," Working Paper Series 7/2005, Stockholm University, Swedish Institute for Social Research.
    16. Shelly J. Lundberg & Jennifer Ward-Batts, 2000. "Saving for Retirement: Household Bargaining and Household Net Worth," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1414, Econometric Society.
    17. Boschini, Anne & Muren, Astri & Persson, Mats, 2012. "Constructing gender differences in the economics lab," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 741-752.
    18. Hasan, Hamid & Ejaz, Nauman, 2013. "Testing for Differences across Genders: A Replication of Ultimatum Game at International Islamic University, Islamabad," MPRA Paper 44923, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Craig E. Landry & Andreas Lange & John A. List & Michael K. Price & Nicholas G. Rupp, 2006. "Toward an Understanding of the Economics of Charity: Evidence from a Field Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(2), pages 747-782.
    20. Jens Bonke & Martin Browning, 2009. "Pooling of Income and Sharing of Consumption within Households," CAM Working Papers 2009-09, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. Centre for Applied Microeconometrics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    intra-household behavior; experimental economics; considerate attitudes; gender discrimination;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C73 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Stochastic and Dynamic Games; Evolutionary Games
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making

    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:esi:discus:2002-14. 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: Karin Richter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mpiewde.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.