IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/jrp/jrpwrp/2007-069.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Devil is in the Details - Sex Differences in Simple Bargaining Games

Author

Listed:
  • Ana Leon-Mejia

    () (IESA-CSIC)

  • Luis M. Miller

    () (IESA-CSIC and Max Planck Institute of Economics)

Abstract

The study of gender differences in social preferences has shown mixed results, preventing economists and other social scientists from drawing definitive conclusions on this topic. Several original investigations and experimental reviews have hypothesized that the main reason of this heterogeneity of results is the myriad of experimental designs used to study gender differences. In this paper we test this hypothesis by making male and female participants to face two different but related experimental games and two different information treatments. Through this 2x2 factorial design, we obtain results in line with some recent papers: women are sensitive to the design and context of the experiment in ways that men are not. In addition, we go further providing a well-grounded account on the importance of the context for female decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Ana Leon-Mejia & Luis M. Miller, 2007. "The Devil is in the Details - Sex Differences in Simple Bargaining Games," Jena Economic Research Papers 2007-069, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
  • Handle: RePEc:jrp:jrpwrp:2007-069
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://zs.thulb.uni-jena.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/jportal_derivate_00051815/wp_2007_069.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sandler, Todd M, 1975. "Pareto Optimality, Pure Public Goods, Impure Public Goods and Multiregional Spillovers," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 22(1), pages 25-38, February.
    2. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Beise, Marian & Stahl, Harald, 1999. "Public research and industrial innovations in Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 397-422.
    4. Dudley, Leonard, 1999. "Communications and economic growth," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 595-619, March.
    5. Stefano Brusoni & Orietta Marsili & Ammon Salter, 2005. "The role of codified sources of knowledge in innovation: Empirical evidence from Dutch manufacturing," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 211-231, January.
    6. Lazaric, Nathalie & Mangolte, Pierre-Andre & Massue, Marie-Laure, 2003. "Articulation and codification of collective know-how in the steel industry: evidence from blast furnace control in France," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1829-1847, December.
    7. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67, pages 297-297.
    8. Nonaka, Ikujiro & Toyama, Ryoko & Nagata, Akiya, 2000. "A Firm as a Knowledge-Creating Entity: A New Perspective on the Theory of the Firm," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 1-20, March.
    9. Antonelli, Cristiano, 2001. "The Microeconomics of Technological Systems," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199245536.
    10. Richard N. Langlois, 2001. "special issue: Knowledge, consumption, and endogenous growth," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 77-93.
    11. Grimaldi, Rosa & Torrisi, Salvatore, 2001. "Codified-tacit and general-specific knowledge in the division of labour among firms: A study of the software industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 1425-1442.
    12. Cohen, Wesley M & Levinthal, Daniel A, 1989. "Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(397), pages 569-596, September.
    13. Richard R. Nelson, 1982. "The Role of Knowledge in R&D Efficiency," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 97(3), pages 453-470.
    14. Nelson, Katherine & Nelson, Richard R., 2002. "On the nature and evolution of human know-how," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 719-733, July.
    15. Cowan, Robin & David, Paul A & Foray, Dominique, 2000. "The Explicit Economics of Knowledge Codification and Tacitness," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 211-253, June.
    16. Richard N. Langlois, 2000. "Knowledge, Consumption, and Endogenous Growth," Working papers 2000-02, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    17. Cowan, Robin & Foray, Dominique, 1997. "The Economics of Codification and the Diffusion of Knowledge," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(3), pages 595-622, September.
    18. Ron Boschma, 2005. "Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 61-74.
    19. Balconi, Margherita, 2002. "Tacitness, codification of technological knowledge and the organisation of industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 357-379, March.
    20. Lissoni, Francesco, 2001. "Knowledge codification and the geography of innovation: the case of Brescia mechanical cluster," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(9), pages 1479-1500, December.
    21. Joanne Roberts, 2001. "The Drive to Codify: Implications for the Knowledge-based Economy," Prometheus, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(2), pages 99-116.
    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. Florian Artinger & Filippos Exadaktylos & Hannes Koppel & Lauri Sääksvuori, 2010. "Applying Quadratic Scoring Rule transparently in multiple choice settings: A note," Jena Economic Research Papers 2010-021, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    2. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Juan C. Cárdenas & Máximo Rossi, 2009. "Gender, education and reciprocal generosity: Evidence from 1,500 experiment subjects," Working Papers 128, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    3. David Zetland & Marina Della Giusta, 2011. "Focal Points, Gender Norms and Reciprocation in Public Good Games," Economics & Management Discussion Papers em-dp2011-01, Henley Business School, Reading University.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Beliefs; economic experiments; empathy; gender differences; social preferences.;

    JEL classification:

    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    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:jrp:jrpwrp:2007-069. 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: (Markus Pasche). General contact details of provider: http://www.jenecon.de .

    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 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.

    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.