Experimental Economics

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 318–331 | Cite as

Gender pairing and bargaining—Beware the same sex!

  • Matthias Sutter
  • Ronald Bosman
  • Martin G. Kocher
  • Frans van Winden


We study the influence of gender and gender pairing on economic decision making in an experimental two-person bargaining game where the other party’s gender is known to both actors. We find that (1) gender per se has no significant effect on behavior, whereas (2) gender pairing systematically affects behavior. In particular, we observe much more competition and retaliation and, thus, lower efficiency when the bargaining partners have the same gender than when they have the opposite gender. These findings are consistent with predictions from evolutionary psychology. Implications of our results for real-world organizations are discussed.


Gender pairing Bargaining Psychology Experiment 

JEL Classification

C72 C91 C92 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

10683_2009_9217_MOESM1_ESM.doc (117 kb)
Supplementary material accompanying “Gender pairing and bargaining – Beware the same sex!” by Matthias Sutter, Ronald Bosman, Martin Kocher and Frans van Winden (doc 117KB)


  1. Andreoni, J., & Vesterlund, L. (2001). Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 293–312. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayres, I. (1991). Fair driving: Gender and race discrimination in retail car negotiations. Harvard Law Review, 104, 817–872. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayres, I., & Siegelman, P. (1995). Race and gender discrimination in bargaining for a new car. American Economic Review, 85, 304–321. Google Scholar
  4. Ben-Ner, A., Kong, F., & Putterman, L. (2004). Share and share alike? Intelligence, socialization, personality, and gender-pairing as determinants of giving. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25, 581–589. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolton, G., & Katok, I. (1995). An experimental test for gender differences in beneficent behavior. Economics Letters, 48, 287–292. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bosman, R., Sutter, M., & van Winden, F. (2005). On the role of emotions and real effort in a power-to-take game: Experimental studies. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26, 407–429. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bosman, R., & van Winden, F. (2002). Emotional hazard in a power-to-take experiment. Economic Journal, 112, 147–169. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowles, H. R., & McGinn, K. L. (2002). When does gender matter in negotiation? John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Working Paper RWP02-036. Google Scholar
  9. Bowles, H. R., Babcock, L., & McGinn, K. L. (2005). Constraints and triggers: Situational mechanics of gender in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 951–965. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buss, D. M. (1999). Evolutionary psychology. The new science of the mind. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Google Scholar
  11. Camerer, C. F. (2003). Behavioral game theory. Experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  12. Camerer, C., & Hogarth, R. M. (1999). The effects of financial incentives in experiments: A review and capital-labor-production framework. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 7–42. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carpenter, J., Verhoogen, E., & Burks, S. (2005). The effects of stakes in distribution experiments. Economics Letters, 86, 393–398. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Craver, C., & Barnes, D. (1999). Gender, risk taking, and negotiation performance. Michigan Journal on Gender and Law, 5, 299–352. Google Scholar
  15. Croson, R., & Buchan, N. (1999). Gender and culture: International experimental evidence from trust games. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 89, 386–391. Google Scholar
  16. Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009, forthcoming). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature. Google Scholar
  17. Dufwenberg, M., & Muren, A. (2006). Gender composition in teams. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 61, 50–54. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1998). Are women less selfish than men? Evidence from dictator experiments. Economic Journal, 108, 726–735. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2001). Chivalry and solidarity in ultimatum games. Economic Inquiry, 39, 171–188. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2008). Differences in the economic decision making of men and women: Experimental evidence. In C. Plott & V. L. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics results (Vol. 1, pp. 509–519). Amsterdam: North Holland. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U., von Rosenbladt, B., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2003). A nationwide laboratory. Examining trust and trustworthiness by integrating behavioral experiments into representative surveys. Institute for Empirical Research in Economics. Working Paper 141. University of Zurich. Google Scholar
  22. Fehr, E., Naef, M., & Schmidt, K. (2006). The role of equality, efficiency, and Rawlsian motives in social preferences: A reply to Engelmann and Strobel. American Economic Review, 96, 1912–1917. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for readymade economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10, 171–178. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Frey, B., & Bohnet, I. (1995). Institutions affect fairness: Experimental investigations. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 151, 286–303. Google Scholar
  25. Frey, B., & Bohnet, I. (1999a). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games: Comment. American Economic Review, 89, 335–339. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Frey, B., & Bohnet, I. (1999b). The sound of silence in prisoner’s dilemma and dictator games. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 38, 43–57. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ginther, D. K., & Kahn, S. (2004). Women in economics: Moving up or falling off the academic career ladder? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18, 193–214. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ginther, D. K., & Hayes, K. J. (2003). Gender differences in salary and promotion for faculty in the humanities. Journal of Human Resources, 38, 34–73. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gneezy, U., Niederle, M., & Rustichini, A. (2003). Performance in competitive environments: Gender differences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 1049–1074. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gneezy, U., Leonard, K. L., & List, J. A. (2009, forthcoming). Gender differences in competition. Evidence from a matrilineal and a patriarchal society. Econometrica. Google Scholar
  31. Grether, D. M. (1992). Testing Bayes rule and the representative heuristic: Some experimental results. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 17, 623–638. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gupta, N. D., Poulsen, A., & Villeval, M. (2005). Do (wo)men prefer (non-)competitive jobs? GATE Working Paper No. 05-12 and IZA Discussion Paper No. 1833. Google Scholar
  33. Holm, H. J. (2000). Gender-based focal points. Games and Economic Behavior, 32, 292–314. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Loewenstein, G. (2000). Emotions in economic theory and economic behavior. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 90, 426–432. Google Scholar
  35. Niederle, M., Segal, C., & Vesterlund, L. (2008). How costly is diversity? Affirmative action in light of gender differences in competitiveness. Working Paper. Google Scholar
  36. Niederle, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2007). Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much?. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122, 1067–1101. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Robertson, R. E. (2001). Women in management: Analysis of selected data from the current population survey. Report to Congressional Requesters No. GAO Report 02-156. U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
  38. Schweitzer, M., & Solnick, S. (1999). The influence of physical attractiveness and gender on ultimatum game decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, 199–215. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sokoloff, N. J. (1992). Black women and white women in the professions: Occupational segregation by race and gender, 1960–1980. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
  40. Solnick, S. J. (2001). Gender differences in the ultimatum game. Economic Inquiry, 39, 189–200. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stuhlmacher, A. F., & Walters, A. E. (1999). Gender differences in negotiation outcome: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 52, 653–677. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sutter, M., & Kocher, M. G. (2007). Trust and trustworthiness across different age groups. Games and Economic Behavior, 59, 364–382. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man: 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine. Google Scholar
  44. Walters, A. E., Stuhlmacher, A. F., & Meyer, L. L. (1998). Gender and negotiator competitiveness: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 1–29. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Watson, C. (1994). Gender versus power as a predictor of negotiation behavior and outcomes. Negotiation Journal, 10, 117–127. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Science Association 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthias Sutter
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ronald Bosman
    • 3
  • Martin G. Kocher
    • 1
    • 4
  • Frans van Winden
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Public FinanceUniversity of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of GothenburgGöteborgSweden
  3. 3.Financial Stability DivisionDe Nederlandsche BankAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of EconomicsUniversity of MunichMunichGermany
  5. 5.CREED/Department of EconomicsUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations