Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Does Gender Composition Affect Group Decision Outcomes? Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Political Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There are good reasons to expect that greater proportions of women in decision making bodies shape decision making in important ways that are not fully considered in the current literature. In the present study, a conceptual framework is presented that differs significantly from other explanations for gendered group decision making. Data from an original laboratory experiment offers support for the hypothesis that group outcomes will vary based on gender composition due to differing process strategies used by men and women. These data illuminate how gender diversity in decision making bodies is likely to shape policy making, as well as enhance our understanding of how policymaking is itself gendered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Recent studies show that although men and women have identical volumes of amygdala, hippocampus, and dorsal prefrontal cortices, women have larger orbital frontal cortices than men. The larger volume devoted to emotional modulation likely relates to behavioral evidence for differences in emotion processing (Gur et al. 2002; see also Cahill 2003, 2006). In other words, there is evidence from cognitive neuroscience that suggests women’s greater propensity for pro-sociality has a physiological basis (see also Hannagan 2008).

  2. A uniform extra credit point payoff was negotiated with instructors ahead of time for the students who wished to participate. For the students, participation was entirely voluntary, not participating had no impact on an individual’s grade, and those who did not wish to participate could gain the extra points in some other way through their class instructor. At the end of the experiment all students, regardless of the divisions made in the games, received the same, maximal extra credit payoff. This research design was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the participating university.

  3. The individual question was asked following the group interaction to eliminate the possibility of contaminating the group decision making process. We acknowledge that this may limit the claims we can make regarding individual preferences. In the future we will randomize the individual question before and after group interaction, but did not do so for logistic and methodological reasons in this experiment.

References

  • Alexander, D., & Andersen, K. (1993). Gender as a factor in the attribution of leadership traits. Political Research Quarterly, 46, 527–545.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni, J., & Vesterlund, L. (2001). Which is the fair sex? Gender and differences in altruism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, (February), 293–312. doi:10.1162/003355301556419.

  • Ashraf, N., Bohnet, I., & Piankov, N. (2006). Decomposing trust and trustworthiness. Experimental Economics, 9, 193–208. doi:10.1007/s10683-006-9122-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berdahl, J. L., & Anderson, C. (2005). Men, women, and leadership centralization in groups over time. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9, 45–57. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.9.1.45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, G. E., & Katok, E. (1995). An experimental test for gender differences in beneficent behavior. Economics Letters, 18, 287–292. doi:10.1016/0165-1765(94)00621-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, G., & Ockenfels, A. (2000). A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. The American Economic Review, 90, 166–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratton, K. A. (2002). The effect of legislative diversity on agenda setting: Evidence from six state legislatures. American Politics Research, 30, 115–142. doi:10.1177/1532673X02030002001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bratton, K. A. (2005). Critical mass theory revisited: The behavior and success of token women in state legislatures. Politics and Gender, 1, 97–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratton, K. A., & Haynie, K. L. (1999). Agenda setting and legislative success in state legislatures: The effects of gender and race. The Journal of Politics, 61, 658–679. doi:10.2307/2647822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, C., Heighberger, N., & Shocket, P. (1993). Gender based differences in perceptions of male and female city council candidates. Women & Politics, 13, 1–17. doi:10.1300/J014v13n01_01.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown-Kruse, J., & Hummels, D. (1993). Gender effects in laboratory public goods contributions: Do individuals put their money where their mouth is? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 48, 255–268. doi:10.1016/0167-2681(93)90001-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchan, N. R., Croson, R., & Solnik, S. (2003). Trust and gender: An examination of behavior, baises, and beliefs in the investment game. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68, 466–476. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2007.10.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buck, R. W., Savin, V. J., Miller, R. E., & Caul, W. F. (1972). Communication of affect through facial expression in humans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 362–371. doi:10.1037/h0033171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrell, B. (1994). A woman’s place is in the house. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cahill, L. (2003). Sex-related influences on the neurobiology of emotionally influenced memory. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 985, 163–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cahill, L. (2006). Why sex matters for neuroscience. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 7, 477–484. doi:10.1038/nrn1909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Childs, S., & Krook, M. L. (2008). Critical mass theory and women’s political representation. Political Studies, 56(3), 725–736. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00712.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croson, R., & Buchan, N. (1999). Gender and culture: International experimental evidence from trust games. The American Economic Review, 89, 386–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Quill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, L. E., Cheng, L. C., & Strube, M. J. (1996). Differential effects of racial composition on male and female groups: Implications for group work practice. Social Work Research, 20, 157–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodson, D., & Carroll, S. (1991). Reshaping the agenda: Women in state legislatures. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for American Women and Politics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H. (1995). The science and politics of comparing women and men. The American Psychologist, 50, 145–158. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.50.3.145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., Johannensen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transfomational, transactional, and Laissez-Faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569–591. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A., & Johnson, B. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 233–256. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckel, C. C., & Wilson, R. K. (2003). Conditional trust: Sex, race, and facial expressions in a trust game. Harvard University, Working Paper.

  • Falk, D. (1997). Brain evolution in females: An answer to Mr. Lovejoy. In L. D. Hager (Ed.), Women in human evolution (pp. 114–136). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. (2002). Theories of fairness and reciprocity—evidence and economic applications. In M. Dewatripont, L. P. Hansen, & S. J. Turnovsky (Eds.), Advances in economics and econometrics—8th world congress, econometric society monographs. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Fessler, D. T. (2002). Emotions and cost-benefit assessment: The role of shame and self-esteem in risk taking. In G. Gigerenzer & R. Selton (Eds.), Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theories and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gur, R. C., Gunning-Dixon, F., Bilker, W. B., & Gur, R. E. (2002). Sex differences in temporo-limbic and frontal brain volumes of healthy adults. Cerebral Cortex (New York, N.Y.), 12, 998–1003. doi:10.1093/cercor/12.9.998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guth, W., & Tietz, R. (1990). Ultimatum bargaining behavior: A survey and comparison of experimental results. Journal of Economic Psychology, 11, 417–449. doi:10.1016/0167-4870(90)90021-Z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutmann, A. (1980). Liberal equality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Communication accuracy and expressive style. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannagan, R. J. (2008). Gendered political behavior: A Darwinian feminist approach. Sex Roles, 59, 465–475. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9417-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., et al. (2001). In search of homo-economicus: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. The American Economic Review, 91, 73–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, E., McCabe, K. A., & Smith, V. L. (1996). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games. The American Economic Review, 86, 653–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howell, S. E., & Day, C. L. (2000). Complexities of the gender gap. The Journal of Politics, 62, 858–874. doi:10.1111/0022-3816.00036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huddy, L., & Terkildsen, N. (1993a). The consequences of gender stereotyping for women candidates at different levels and types of office. Political Research Quarterly, 46, 503–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huddy, L., & Terkildsen, N. (1993b). Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 119–147. doi:10.2307/2111526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyde, J. S. (1996). Where are the gender differences? Where are the gender similarities. In D. M. Buss & N. M. Malamuth (Eds.), Sex, power, conflict. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. The American Psychologist, 60, 581–592. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ivanova-Stenzel, R., & Kubler, D. (2005). Courtesy and idleness: Gender differences in team work and teach competition. Discussion Paper No. 91: Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems, September 12, pp. 1–23.

  • Jewell, M. E., & Whicker, M. L. (1995). Legislative leadership in the American States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M. (1977a). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M. (1977b). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 965–990. doi:10.1086/226425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kathlene, L. (1990). A new approach to understanding the impact of gender on the legislative process. In J. M. Nielsen (Ed.), Feminist research methods: Exemplary readings in the social sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kathlene, L. (1994). Power and influence in state legislative policymaking: The interaction of gender and position in committee hearing debates. The American Political Science Review, 88, 560–576. doi:10.2307/2944795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, R. M., Saint-Germain, M. A., & Horn, J. D. (1991). Female public officials: A different voice? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 515, 77–87. doi:10.1177/0002716291515001007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, C. (2003). Gender difference in committee decision-making: Process and outputs in an experimental setting. Women & Politics, 25, 27–45. doi:10.1300/J014v25n03_02.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenrick, D., & Luce, C. (2000). An evolutionary life-history model of gender differences and similarities. In T. Eckes & H. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender. Mahwah: Lawrence Earlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurzban, R., & DeScioli, P. (2008). Characterizing reciprocity in groups: Information-seeking in a public goods game. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 139–158. doi:10.1002/ejsp.443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larimer, C. W., Hannagan, R., & Smith, K. B. (2007). Balancing ambition and gender among decision makers. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 614, 56–73. doi:10.1177/0002716207305272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeDoux, J. (1996). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leeper, M. (1991). The impact of prejudice on female candidates: An experimental look at voter inference. American Politics Quarterly, 19, 248–261. doi:10.1177/1532673X9101900206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maccoby, E. (1998). The two sexes. Cambridge, MA: Belnap Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, G. (2002). The sentimental citizen: Emotion in democratic politics. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, R. (2004). The feeling of rationality: The meaning of neuroscientific advances for political science. Perspectives on Politics, 2, 691–706.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. T., & Prentice, D. A. (1999). Some consequences of a belief in group essence: The category divide hypothesis. In D. A. Prentice & D. T. Miller (Eds.), Cultural divides: Understanding and overcoming group conflict. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murningham, J. K., & Saxton, M. S. (1998). Ultimatum bargaining by children and adults. Journal of Economic Psychology, 19, 415–445. doi:10.1016/S0167-4870(98)00017-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niven, D. (1998). Party elites and women candidates: The shape of bias. Women & Politics, 19, 57–80. doi:10.1300/J014v19n02_03.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, P., & Lovenduski, J. (2001). Blair’s babes: Critical mass theory, gender, and legislative life. In Paper for the women and public policy program weekly seminar, 1.00–2.30, Friday 28th September 2001, Fainsod Room, Kennedy School of Government.

  • Nowak, M. A., Page, K., & Sigmund, K. (2000). Fairness versus reason in the ultimatum game. Science, 289, 1773–1775. doi:10.1126/science.289.5485.1773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowell, C., & Tinkler, S. (1994). The influence of gender on the provision of a public good. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 25, 25–36. doi:10.1016/0167-2681(94)90084-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orbell, J., Dawes, R., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (1994). Trust, social categories, and individuals: The case of gender. Motivation and Emotion, 18, 109–128. doi:10.1007/BF02249396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E., & Walker, J. (2003). Trust and reciprocity. New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitkin, H. (1984). Fortune is a woman. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratto, F. (1996). Sexual politics: The gender gap in the bedroom, the cupboard, and the cabinet. In D. M. Buss & N. M. Malamuth (Eds.), Sex, power, conflict: Evolutionary and feminist perspectives (pp. 179–230). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratto, F., Stallworth, L. M., & Conway-Lanz, S. (1998). Social dominance orientation and the ideological legitimization of social policy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1853–1874. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01349.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratto, F., Tatar, D. G., & Conway-Lanz, S. (1999). Who gets what and why: Determinants of social allocation. Political Psychology, 20, 127–150. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reingold, B. (2000). Representing women: Sex, gender, and legislative behavior in Arizona and California. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C., & Correll, S. (2000). Limiting inequality through interaction: The end(s) of gender. Contemporary Sociology, 29, 110–120. doi:10.2307/2654936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1999). The gender system and interaction. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 191–216. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, C. S. (1998). When women lead: Integrative leadership in state legislatures. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, C. S. (2000). Gender styles in state legislative committees: Raising their voices in resolving conflict. Women & Politics, 21, 21–45. doi:10.1300/J014v21n02_02.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saint-Germain, M. (1989). Does their difference make a difference? The impact of women on public policy in the Arizona legislature. Social Science Quarterly, 70, 956–968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmid Mast, M. (2001). Gender differences and similarities in dominance hierarchies in same-gender groups based on speaking time. Sex Roles, 44, 537–556. doi:10.1023/A:1012239024732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmid Mast, M. (2004). Men are hierarchical, women are egalitarian: An implicit gender stereotype. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 63, 107–111. doi:10.1024/1421-0185.63.2.107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sczesny, S., Bosak, J., Neff, D., & Schyns, B. (2004). Gender stereotypes and the attribution of leadership traits: A cross-cultural comparison. Sex Roles, 51(11/12), 631–645. doi:10.1007/s11199-004-0715-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sell, J. (1997). Gender, strategies, and contributions to public goods. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 252–265. doi:10.2307/2787085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, R., & Mahajan, H. (1986). Gender differences in policy preferences: A summary of trends from the 1960s to the 1980s. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 42–61. doi:10.1086/268958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1993). The inevitability of oppression and the dynamics of social dominance. In P. Sniderman & P. Tetlock (Eds.), Prejudice, politics, and the American dilemma (pp. 173–211). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solnick, S. (2001). Gender differences in the ultimatum game. Economic Inquiry, 39, 189–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swers, M. (1998). Are women more likely to vote for women’s issue bills than their male colleagues? Legislative Studies Quarterly, XXIII(3), 435–448. doi:10.2307/440362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, S. (1991). The impact of women on state legislative policies. The Journal of Politics, 53, 958–976. doi:10.2307/2131862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, S. (1994). How women legislate. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Towson, S. M., Lerner, M. J., & de Carufel, A. (1981). Justice rules or ingroup loyalties: The effects of competition on children’s allocation behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 696–700. doi:10.1177/014616728174029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Kragt, A. J. C., Orbell, J. M., Dawes, R. M., Braver, S. R., & Wilson, L. A., II. (1986). Doing well and doing good as ways of resolving social dilemmas. In H. Wilke, D. Messick, D. Messick, & C. Rutte (Eds.), Experimental social dilemmas (pp. 177–203). Frankfurt: Lang Gmbh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vugt, V., Mark, D. D. C., & Janssen, D. P. (2007). Gender differences in cooperation and competition. Psychological Science, 18, 19–23. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01842.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, H. L., Buck, R., & Winterbotham, M. (1993). Communication of specific emotions: Gender difference in sending accuracy and communication measures. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 17, 29–53. doi:10.1007/BF00987007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch, S., & Hibbing, J. R. (1992). Financial conditions, gender, and voting in American National Elections. The Journal of Politics, 54, 197–213. doi:10.2307/2131650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weldon, S. L. (2002). Beyond bodies: Institutional sources of representation for women in democratic policymaking. The Journal of Politics, 64, 1153–1174. doi:10.1111/1468-2508.00167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolbrecht, C. (2000). The politics of women’s rights: Parties, positions, and change. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. M. (1987). Impartiality and the civic public: Some implications of feminist critiques of moral and political theory. In S. Benhabib & D. Cornell (Eds.), Feminism as critique. Oxford: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. M. (1990). The ideal of community and the politics of difference. In L. Nicholson (Ed.), Feminism/postmodernism. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Kevin B. Smith and three anonymous reviewers for their excellent comments on previous drafts of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Northern Illinois University, 415 Zulauf Hall, DeKalb, IL, 60115, USA

    Rebecca J. Hannagan

  2. Department of Political Science, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA, USA

    Christopher W. Larimer

Authors
  1. Rebecca J. Hannagan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christopher W. Larimer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rebecca J. Hannagan.

Additional information

This research was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hannagan, R.J., Larimer, C.W. Does Gender Composition Affect Group Decision Outcomes? Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment. Polit Behav 32, 51–67 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-009-9087-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-009-9087-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation