Converging evidence for greater male variability in time, risk, and social preferences
Edited by Elke U. Weber, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, and approved April 22, 2021 (received for review December 27, 2020)
Significance
There is continuing interest in the study of gender differences in economic and social outcomes. An important factor underlying gender differences in outcomes are gender differences in fundamental economic preferences, which are at the core of many differential choices of women and men. We provide strong evidence for greater male variability in preferences. We find that men are more likely to have extreme time, risk, and social preferences, while women are more likely to have moderate preferences. With the focus on mean differences, the current literature underestimates the importance of gender differences and their effects on differential choices and outcomes between women and men.
Abstract
Gender differences in time, risk, and social preferences are important determinants of differential choices of men and women, with broad implications for gender-specific social and economic outcomes. To better understand the shape and form of gender differences in preferences, researchers have traditionally examined the mean differences between the two genders. We present an alternative perspective of greater male variability in preferences. In a meta-analysis of experimental economics studies with more than 50,000 individuals in 97 samples, we find converging evidence for greater male variability in time, risk, and social preferences. In some cases, we find greater male variability in addition to mean differences; in some cases, we only find greater male variability. Our findings suggest that theories of gender differences are incomplete if they fail to consider how the complex interaction of between-gender differences and within-gender variability determines differential choices and outcomes between women and men.
Data Availability
Data cannot be shared. (Our study is a meta-analysis combining the data of more than 90 academic articles. The majority of the data sets are available online from the journal websites. Part of the data was acquired by contacting the authors. We do not have the right to disseminate the data, but researchers who want to reproduce our work should be able to get the data from the same sources as we did.)
Acknowledgments
We thank all authors of the studies included in this meta-analysis for generously sharing their data with us. For very helpful comments and suggestions, we thank the editor, two anonymous referees, Larry Cahill, Jose M. Cortina, Matthew O. Jackson, Steven Pinker, Jonathan Schulz, and the participants of the French Experimental Talks seminar.
Supporting Information
Appendix (PDF)
- Download
- 1.13 MB
References
1
R. Croson, U. Gneezy, Gender differences in preferences. J. Econ. Lit. 47, 448–474 (2009).
2
A. Falk, J. Hermle, Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality. Science 362, eaas9899 (2018).
3
M. Bertrand, “New perspectives on gender” in Handbook of Labor Economics, Volume 4b, D. Card, O. Ashenfelter, Eds. (Elsevier B.V., 2011), vol. 4, pp. 1545–1592.
4
M. Niederle, “Gender” in The Handbook of Experimental Economics, J. H. Kagel, A. E. Roth, Eds. (Princeton University Press, 2017), vol. 2, pp. 481–562.
5
T. Buser, M. Niederle, H. Oosterbeek, Gender, competitiveness and career choices. Q. J. Econ. 129, 1409–1447 (2014).
6
D. C. Geary, Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences (American Psychological Association, 2010), p. 397.
7
D. M. Buss, D. P. Schmitt, Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychol. Rev. 100, 204–232 (1993).
8
A. H. Eagly, W. Wood, The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. Am. Psychol. 54, 408–423 (1999).
9
K. Bussey, A. Bandura, Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychol. Rev. 106, 676–713 (1999).
10
J. S. Hyde, Gender similarities and differences. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 65, 373–398 (2014).
11
J. Archer, M. Mehdikhani, Variability among males in sexually selected attributes. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 7, 219–236 (2003).
12
A. C. Lehre, K. P. Lehre, P. Laake, N. C. Danbolt, Greater intrasex phenotype variability in males than in females is a fundamental aspect of the gender differences in humans. Dev. Psychobiol. 51, 198–206 (2009).
13
W. Johnson, A. Carothers, I. J. Deary, Sex differences in variability in general intelligence: A new look at the old question. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 3, 518–531 (2008).
14
D. M. Buss, Psychological sex differences. Origins through sexual selection. Am. Psychol. 50, 164–168, discussion 169–171 (1995).
15
R. L. Trivers, “Parental investment and sexual selection” in Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, B. Campbell, Ed. (Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago, 1972), pp. 136–179.
16
R. W. Wilcockson, C. S. Crean, T. H. Day, Heritability of a sexually selected character expressed in both sexes. Nature 374, 158–159 (1995).
17
B. Pawlowski, R. I. M. Dunbar, A. Lipowicz, Tall men have more reproductive success. Nature 403, 156 (2000).
18
J. Archer, Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychol. Bull. 126, 651–680 (2000).
19
E. M. Miller, Could nonshared environmental variance have evolved to assure diversification through randomness? Evol. Hum. Behav. 18, 195–221 (1997).
20
S. Pinker, Sex Ed: The science of difference. The New Republic, 14 February 2005. https://newrepublic.com/article/68044/sex-ed. Accessed 27 May 2021.
21
T. P. Hill, Modeling the evolution of differences in variability between sexes. J. Interdiscip. Math. 23, 1009–1031 (2020).
22
L. M. Wierenga et al.; Karolinska Schizophrenia Project (KaSP) Consortium, Greater male than female variability in regional brain structure across the lifespan. Hum. Brain Mapp., (2020).
23
A. Pomiankowski, A. P. Møller, A resolution of the lek paradox. Proc. Biol. Sci. 260, 21–29 (1995).
24
L. V. Hedges, A. Nowell, Sex differences in mental test scores, variability, and numbers of high-scoring individuals. Science 269, 41–45 (1995).
25
J. S. Hyde, S. M. Lindberg, M. C. Linn, A. B. Ellis, C. C. Williams, Diversity. Gender similarities characterize math performance. Science 321, 494–495 (2008).
26
R. Arden, R. Plomin, Sex differences in variance of intelligence across childhood. Pers. Individ. Dif. 41, 39–48 (2006).
27
C. Thöni, S. Volk, J. M. Cortina, Greater male variability in cooperation: Meta-analytic evidence for an evolutionary perspective. Psychol. Sci. 32, 50–63 (2021).
28
M. Van Vugt, W. Iredale, Men behaving nicely: Public goods as peacock tails. Br. J. Psychol. 104, 3–13 (2013).
29
M. D. Baker, J. K. Maner, Risk-taking as a situationally sensitive male mating strategy. Evol. Hum. Behav. 29, 391–395 (2008).
30
D. Farrelly, P. Clemson, M. Guthrie, Are women’s mate preferences for altruism also influenced by physical attractiveness? Evol. Psychol. 14, 1–6 (2016).
31
D. Ehlebracht, O. Stavrova, D. Fetchenhauer, D. Farrelly, The synergistic effect of prosociality and physical attractiveness on mate desirability. Br. J. Psychol. 109, 517–537 (2018).
32
P. J. Curran, A. M. Hussong, Integrative data analysis: The simultaneous analysis of multiple data sets. Psychol. Methods 14, 81–100 (2009).
33
C. F. Camerer, “The promise and success of lab-field generalizability in experimental economics: A critical reply to Levitt and List” in Handbook of Experimental Economic Methodology, G. R. Fréchette, A. Schotter, Eds. (Oxford University Press, 2015), pp. 249–295.
34
B. Herrmann, C. Thöni, S. Gächter, Antisocial punishment across societies. Science 319, 1362–1367 (2008).
35
J. Henrich et al., Markets, religion, community size, and the evolution of fairness and punishment. Science 327, 1480–1484 (2010).
36
C. Thöni, “Cross-cultural behavioral experiments: Potential and challenges” in Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Experimental Economics, A. Schram, A. Ule, Eds. (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019), chap. 18, pp. 349–367.
37
J. Andreoni, C. Sprenger, Estimating time preferences from convex budgets. Am. Econ. Rev. 102, 3333–3356 (2012).
38
U. Gneezy, J. Potters, An experiment on risk taking and evaluation periods. Q. J. Econ. 112, 631–645 (1997).
39
R. Forsythe, J. L. Horowitz, N. E. Savin, M. Sefton, Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games Econ. Behav. 6, 347–369 (1994).
40
W. Güth, R. Schmittberger, B. Schwarze, An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 3, 367–388 (1982).
41
J. Berg, J. Dickhaut, K. McCabe, Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games Econ. Behav. 10, 122–142 (1995).
42
S. Alan, T. Boneva, S. Ertac, Ever failed, try again, succeed better: Results from a randomized educational intervention on grit. Q. J. Econ. 134, 1121–1162 (2019).
43
S. Alan, S. Ertac, Fostering patience in the classroom: Results from randomized educational intervention. J. Polit. Econ. 126, 1865–1911 (2018).
44
R. Banerjee, N. D. Gupta, M. C. Villeval, The spillover effects of affirmative action on competitiveness and unethical behavior. Eur. Econ. Rev. 101, 567–604 (2018).
45
S. Banuri, P. Keefer, Pro-social motivation, effort and the call to public service. Eur. Econ. Rev. 83, 139–164 (2016).
46
M. Bauer, N. Fiala, I. Levely, Trusting former rebels: An experimental approach to understanding reintegration after civil war. Econ. J. (Lond.) 128, 1786–1819 (2018).
47
C. Bellemare, S. Kröger, A. van Soest, Measuring inequity aversion in a heterogeneous population using experimental decisions and subjective probabilities. Econometrica 76, 815–839 (2008).
48
J. Butler, P. Giuliano, L. Guiso, Trust and cheating. Econ. J. (Lond.) 126, 1703–1738 (2016).
49
A. W. Cappelen, T. Halvorsen, E. Ø. Sørensen, B. Tungodden, Face-saving or fair-minded: What motivates moral behavior? J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 15, 540–557 (2017).
50
L. S. Carvalho, S. Meier, S. W. Wang, Poverty and economic decision-making: Evidence from changes in financial resources at payday. Am. Econ. Rev. 106, 260–284 (2016).
51
T. N. Cason, L. Friesen, L. Gangadharan, Regulatory performance of audit tournaments and compliance observability. Eur. Econ. Rev. 85, 288–306 (2016).
52
G. Charness, M.-C. Villeval, Cooperation and competition in intergenerational experiments in the field and the laboratory. Am. Econ. Rev. 99, 956–978 (2009).
53
A. Cohn, J. Engelmann, E. Fehr, M. A. Maréchal, Evidence for countercyclical risk aversion: An experiment with financial professionals. Am. Econ. Rev. 105, 860–885 (2015).
54
B. D’Exelle, A. Verschoor, Investment behaviour, risk sharing and social distance. Econ. J. (Lond.) 125, 777–802 (2015).
55
J. de Quidt, J. Haushofer, C. Roth, Measuring and bounding experimenter demand. Am. Econ. Rev. 108, 3266–3302 (2018).
56
D. L. Dickinson, T. McElroy, Sleep restriction and circadian effects on social decisions. Eur. Econ. Rev. 97, 57–71 (2017).
57
O. Dijk, M. Holmen, M. Kirchler, Rank matters—The impact of social competition on portfolio choice. Eur. Econ. Rev. 66, 97–110 (2014).
58
T. Dohmen, A. Falk, Performance pay and multidimensional sorting: Productivity, preferences, and gender. Am. Econ. Rev. 101, 556–590 (2011).
59
C. C. Eckel, R. Petrie, Face value. Am. Econ. Rev. 101, 1497–1513 (2011).
60
N. Erkal, L. Gangadharan, B. H. Koh, Monetary and non-monetary incentives in real-effort tournaments. Eur. Econ. Rev. 101, 528–545 (2018).
61
G. Friebel, M. Kosfeld, G. Thielmann, Trust the police? Self-selection of motivated agents into the German police force. Am. Econ. J. Microecon. 11, 59–78 (2019).
62
B. Gillen, E. Snowberg, L. Yariv, Experimenting with measurement error: Techniques with applications to the Caltech cohort study. J. Polit. Econ. 127, 1826–1863 (2019).
63
X. Giné, J. Goldberg, D. Silverman, D. Yang, Revising commitments: Field evidence on the adjustment of prior choices. Econ. J. (Lond.) 128, 159–188 (2018).
64
U. Gneezy, K. L. Leonard, J. A. List, Gender differences in competition: Evidence from a matrilineal and a patriarchal society. Econometrica 77, 1637–1664 (2009).
65
G. Graziani, W. van der Klaauw, B. Zafar, Workers’ spending response to the 2011 payroll tax cuts. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 8, 124–159 (2016).
66
S. P. Hargreaves Heap, D. J. Zizzo, The value of groups. Am. Econ. Rev. 99, 295–323 (2009).
67
A. Heyes, J. A. List, Supply and demand for discrimination: Strategic revelation of own characteristics in a trust game. Am. Econ. Rev. 106, 319–323 (2016).
68
H. J. Holm, A. Danielson, Tropic trust versus Nordic trust: Experimental evidence from Tanzania and Sweden. Econ. J. (Lond.) 115, 505–532 (2005).
69
D. Houser, S. Vetter, J. Winter, Fairness and cheating. Eur. Econ. Rev. 56, 1645–1655 (2012).
70
J. Huber, M. Kirchler, D. Kleinlercher, M. Sutter, Market versus residence principle: Experimental evidence on the effects of a financial transaction tax. Econ. J. (Lond.) 127, F610–F631 (2017).
71
A. Imas, The realization effect: Risk-taking after realized versus paper losses. Am. Econ. Rev. 106, 2086–2109 (2016).
72
P. Jakiela, O. Ozier, Does Africa need a rotten kin theorem? Experimental evidence from village economies. Rev. Econ. Stud. 83, 231–268 (2016).
73
M. Lührmann, M. Serra-Garcia, J. Winter, The impact of financial education on adolescents’ intertemporal choices. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 10, 309–332 (2018).
74
M. Sutter, S. Angerer, D. Glätzle-Rützler, P. Lergetporer, Language group differences in time preferences: Evidence from primary school children in a bilingual city. Eur. Econ. Rev. 106, 21–34 (2018).
75
J. van der Weele, J. Kulisa, M. Kosfeld, G. Friebel, Resisting moral wiggle room: How robust is reciprocity? Am. Econ. J. Microecon. 6, 256–264 (2014).
76
F. Zimmermann, The dynamics of motivated beliefs. Am. Econ. Rev. 110, 337–363 (2020).
77
J. Andreoni, L. Vesterlund, Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. Q. J. Econ. 116, 293–312 (2001).
78
U. Balakrishnan, J. Haushofer, P. Jakiela, How soon is now? Evidence of present bias from convex time budget experiments. Exp. Econ. 23, 294–321 (2020).
79
A. Boschini, A. Dreber, E. von Essen, A. Muren, E. Ranehill, Gender and altruism in a random sample. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 77, 72–77 (2018).
80
P. Brañas-Garza, V. Capraro, E. Rascón-Ramírez, Gender differences in altruism on Mechanical Turk: Expectations and actual behaviour. Econ. Lett. 170, 19–23 (2018).
81
P. Brañas-Garza, A. M. Espín, F. Exadaktylos, B. Herrmann, Fair and unfair punishers coexist in the ultimatum game. Sci. Rep. 4, 6025 (2014).
82
T. Buser, Digit ratios, the menstrual cycle and social preferences. Games Econ. Behav. 76, 457–470 (2012).
83
A. W. Cappelen, U. H. Nielsen, B. Tungodden, J.-R. Tyran, E. Wengström, Fairness is intuitive. Exp. Econ. 19, 727–740 (2016).
84
M. Castillo, G. Leo, R. Petrie, Room composition effects on risk taking by gender. Exp. Econ. 23, 895–911 (2020).
85
Y. Chen, M. Jiang, E. L. Krupka, Hunger and the gender gap. Exp. Econ. 22, 885–917 (2019).
86
Y. Chuang, L. Schechter, Stability of experimental and survey measures of risk, time, and social preferences: A review and some new results. J. Dev. Econ. 117, 151–170 (2015).
87
B. L. Cleave, N. Nikiforakis, R. Slonim, Is there selection bias in laboratory experiments? The case of social and risk preferences. Exp. Econ. 16, 372–382 (2013).
88
B. Deffains, R. Espinosa, C. Thöni, Political self-serving bias and redistribution. J. Public Econ. 134, 67–74 (2016).
89
E. E. Demiral, J. Mollerstrom, The entitlement effect in the ultimatum game – Does it even exist? J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 175, 341–352 (2020).
90
R. Espinosa, B. Deffains, C. Thöni, Debiasing preferences over redistribution: An experiment. Soc. Choice Welfare 55, 823–843 (2020).
91
F. Exadaktylos, A. M. Espín, P. Brañas-Garza, Experimental subjects are not different. Sci. Rep. 3, 1213 (2013).
92
B. Gong, H. Yan, C. L. Yang, Gender differences in the dictator experiment: Evidence from the matrilineal Mosuo and the patriarchal Yi. Exp. Econ. 18, 302–313 (2015).
93
G. Grimalda, A. Kar, E. Proto, Procedural fairness in lotteries assigning initial roles in a dynamic setting. Exp. Econ. 19, 819–841 (2016).
94
K. E. Hauge, K. A. Brekke, L. O. Johansson, O. Johansson-Stenman, H. Svedsäter, Keeping others in our mind or in our heart? Distribution games under cognitive load. Exp. Econ. 19, 562–576 (2016).
95
J. Hergueux, N. Jacquemet, Social preferences in the online laboratory: A randomized experiment. Exp. Econ. 18, 251–283 (2015).
96
J. Ifcher, H. Zarghamee, The rapid evolution of homo economicus: Brief exposure to neoclassical assumptions increases self-interested behavior. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 75, 55–65 (2018).
97
D. Kistler, C. Thöni, C. Welzel, Survey response and observed behavior: Emancipative and secular values predict prosocial behaviors. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 48, 461–489 (2017).
98
V. Kurz, A. Orland, K. Posadzy, Fairness versus efficiency: How procedural fairness concerns affect coordination. Exp. Econ. 21, 601–626 (2018).
99
G. Saad, T. Gill, Sex differences in the ultimatum game: An evolutionary psychology perspective. J. Bioeconomics 3, 171–193 (2001).
100
J. Schmitz, Is charitable giving a zero-sum game? The effect of competition between charities on giving behavior. Manage. Sci. in press.
101
S. Zhong et al., Dopamine D4 receptor gene associated with fairness preference in ultimatum game. PLoS One 5, e13765 (2010).
102
S. W. Raudenbush, “Analyzing effect sizes: Random-effects models” in The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis, H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, J. C. Valentine, Eds. (Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 2009), pp. 295–315.
103
B. Pisani, Wall Street worries about regulatory fallout from the GameStop saga. CNBC, 4 February 2021. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/04/wall-street-worries-about-regulatory-fallout-from-the-gamestop-saga.html. Accessed 19 May 2021.
104
K. A. Jehn, A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Adm. Sci. Q. 40, 256–282 (1995).
Information & Authors
Information
Published in
Cover image: Pictured is a thin section of Grizzly kimberlite from Lac de Gras, Canada, displaying colorful crystals of the mineral olivine. Nao Nakanishi et al. measured the isotope compositions of primitive kimberlites, which are igneous rocks derived from deep mantle sources, from 10 localities, ranging in age from 1,153 million to 89 million years, to probe the rocks’ origins. The authors found that the kimberlite samples have comparatively uniform tungsten-182/tungsten-184 isotope ratios averaging around 6 parts per million lower than the ratio in the upper mantle. This low tungsten isotope ratio suggests that primitive kimberlites formed from one or more deep mantle reservoirs that developed early in Earth’s history and remained isolated for a period of at least 1 billion years. See the article by Nakanishi et al., e2020680118. Image credit: Nao Nakanishi et al.
Classifications
Copyright
© 2021. Published under the PNAS license.
Data Availability
Data cannot be shared. (Our study is a meta-analysis combining the data of more than 90 academic articles. The majority of the data sets are available online from the journal websites. Part of the data was acquired by contacting the authors. We do not have the right to disseminate the data, but researchers who want to reproduce our work should be able to get the data from the same sources as we did.)
Submission history
Published online: June 4, 2021
Published in issue: June 8, 2021
Keywords
Acknowledgments
We thank all authors of the studies included in this meta-analysis for generously sharing their data with us. For very helpful comments and suggestions, we thank the editor, two anonymous referees, Larry Cahill, Jose M. Cortina, Matthew O. Jackson, Steven Pinker, Jonathan Schulz, and the participants of the French Experimental Talks seminar.
Notes
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
Authors
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interest.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citation statements
Altmetrics
Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
Cited by
Loading...
View Options
View options
PDF format
Download this article as a PDF file
DOWNLOAD PDFLogin options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Personal login Institutional LoginRecommend to a librarian
Recommend PNAS to a LibrarianPurchase options
Purchase this article to access the full text.