Journal of Bioeconomics

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 213–225 | Cite as

Social context reveals gender differences in cooperative behavior

  • Anastasia Peshkovskaya
  • Tatiana BabkinaEmail author
  • Mikhail Myagkov


A number of previous researches indicate that men prefer competition over cooperation, and it is sometimes suggested that women show the opposite behavioral preference. In the current study the effects of social context on gender differences in cooperation are investigated. For the purpose, we compared men and women behavior under two social conditions: in groups of strangers and in groups with long-term socialization—groups of friends. The differences were found in changes in the level of cooperation, taking into account the effects of mixing social and gender variables. Social interaction and communication made cooperation of group members strength and sustainable. However, men’s and women’s cooperative behavior in groups differed. Women were initially more inclined to cooperate in interaction with strangers. Men showed greater sensitivity to sociality effects. They tended to make cooperative decisions more often if there were friends in the group. Furthermore, men cooperated with previously unknown people after socialization with them significantly more than women.


Gender differences Cooperation Social dilemma Prisoner’s dilemma Sociality Group Experiment 

JEL Classification

A13 C10 C40 C71 C91 C92 



This research was supported by The Tomsk State University competitiveness improvement program. Some of the results were presented at the Fourth Workshop on Experimental Economics and Machine Learning, Dresden, Germany.

Supplementary material

10818_2018_9271_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (80 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 79 kb)
10818_2018_9271_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (72 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 72 kb)
10818_2018_9271_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (91 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 91 kb)


  1. Andreoni, J., Harbaugh, W. T., & Vesterlund, L. (2010). Altruism in experiments. Behavioural and experimental economics (pp. 6–13). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Andreoni, J., & Vesterlund, L. (2001). Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 293–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Babkina, T., Myagkov, M., Lukinova, E., Peshkovskaya, A., Menshikova, O., & Berkman, E. T. (2016). Choice of the group increases intra-cooperation. CEUR Workshop Proceeding, 1627, 13–23.Google Scholar
  4. Bailey, D. H., Winegard, B., Oxford, J., & Geary, D. C. (2012). Sex differences in in-group cooperation vary dynamically with competitive conditions and outcomes. Evolutionary Psychology, 10(1), 102–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balliet, D., Li, N. P., Macfarlan, S. J., & Van Vugt, M. (2011). Sex differences in cooperation: A meta-analytic review of social dilemmas. Psychological Bulletin, 137(6), 881–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buss, D. M. (1995). Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual selection. American Psychologist, 50(3), 164–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charness, G., & Rustichini, A. (2011). Gender differences in cooperation with group membership. Games and Economic Behavior, 72(1), 77–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cox, J. C., & Deck, C. A. (2006). When are women more generous than men? Economic Inquiry, 44(4), 587–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic literature, 47(2), 448–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Croson, R., Marks, M., & Snyder, J. (2008). Groups work for women: Gender and group identity in social dilemmas. Negotiation Journal, 24(4), 411–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122(1), 5–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dasgupta, N. (2004). Implicit ingroup favoritism, outgroup favoritism, and their behavioral manifestations. Social Justice Research, 17(2), 143–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eagly, A. H. (1983). Gender and social influence: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 38(9), 971–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eagly, A. H. (2009). The his and hers of prosocial behavior: An examination of the social psychology of gender. American Psychologist, 64(8), 644–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1991). Explaining sex differences in social behavior: A meta-analytic perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(3), 306–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1997). Sticking together or falling apart: In-group identification as a psychological determinant of group commitment versus individual mobility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), 617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ellingsen, T., Johannesson, M., Mollerstrom, J., & Munkhammar, S. (2013). Gender differences in social framing effects. Economics Letters, 118(3), 470–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 429–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental economics, 10(2), 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischbacher, U., Gächter, S., & Fehr, E. (2001). Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Economics letters, 71(3), 397–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fishbach, A., Zhang, Y., & Koo, M. (2009). The dynamics of self-regulation. European Review of Social Psychology, 20(1), 315–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Flinn, M. V., & Low, B. S. (1986). Resource distribution, social competition, and mating patterns in human societies. In D. I. Rubenstein & R. W. Wrangham (Eds.), Ecological aspects of social evolution: Birds and mammals (pp. 217–243). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Geary, D. C. (1998). Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grujić, J., Fosco, C., Araujo, L., Cuesta, J. A., & Sánchez, A. (2010). Social experiments in the mesoscale: Humans playing a spatial prisoner’s dilemma. PLoS ONE. Scholar
  25. Hyde, J. S., & Frost, L. A. (1993). Meta-analysis in the psychology of women. In F. L. Denmark & M. A. Paludi (Eds.), Psychology of women: A handbook of issues and theories (pp. 67–103). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press/Greenwood.Google Scholar
  26. King, W. C., Miles, E. W., & Kniska, J. (1991). Boys will be boys (and girls will be girls): The attribution of gender role stereotypes in a gaming situation. Sex Roles, 25(11–12), 607–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klein, H. M., & Willerman, L. (1979). Psychological masculinity and femininity and typical and maximal dominance expression in women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2059–2070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lukinova, E., Babkina, T., Sedush, A., Menshikov, I., Menshikova, O., & Myagkov, M. (2017). Sociality is not lost with monetary transactions within social groups. CEUR Workshop Proceeding, 1968, 18–30.Google Scholar
  29. Lukinova, E., Myagkov, M., & Shishkin, P. (2014). The value of sociality. Foresight, 16(4), 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). Myth, reality and shades of gray: What we know and don’t know about sex differences. Psychology Today, 8(7), 109–112.Google Scholar
  31. Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1978). The psychology of sex differences (Vol. 2). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Maher, J. M., Markey, J. C., & Ebert-May, D. (2013). The other half of the story: Effect size analysis in quantitative research. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 12(3), 345–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Menshikov, I. S., Shklover, A. V., Babkina, T. S., & Myagkov, M. G. (2017). From rationality to cooperativeness: The totally mixed Nash equilibrium in Markov strategies in the iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma. PloS one. Scholar
  34. Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (1998). Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring. Nature, 393(6685), 573–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peshkovskaya, A. G., Babkina, T. S., Myagkov, M. G., Kulikov, I. A., Ekshova, K. V., & Harriff, K. (2017a). The socialization effect on decision making in the Prisoner’s Dilemma game: An eye-tracking study. PLoS ONE. Scholar
  36. Peshkovskaya, A., Myagkov, M., Babkina, T., & Lukinova, E. (2017b). Do women socialize better? Evidence from a study on sociality effects on gender differences in cooperative behavior. CEUR Workshop Proceeding, 1968, 18–30.Google Scholar
  37. Putnam, L. L., & McCallister, L. (1980). Situational effects of task and gender on nonverbal display. Annals of the International Communication Association, 4, 679–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Riolo, R. L., Cohen, M. D., & Axelrod, R. (2001). Evolution of cooperation without reciprocity. Nature, 414(6862), 441–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Serbin, L. A., Powlishta, K. K., Gulko, J., Martin, C. L., & Lockheed, M. E. (1993). Monographs of the society for research in child development. The development of sex typing in middle childhood. Scholar
  40. Spence, J. T. (1993). Gender-related traits and gender ideology: Evidence for a multifactorial theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 624–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Lange, P. A., De Bruin, E., Otten, W., & Joireman, J. A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 733–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. van Vugt, M., Cremer, D. D., & Janssen, D. P. (2007). Gender differences in cooperation and competition: The male-warrior hypothesis. Psychological Science, 18(1), 19–23.CrossRefGoogle 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), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wasserstein, R. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2016). The ASA’s statement on p-values: Context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician, 70(2), 129–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Witt, M. G., & Wood, W. (2010). Self-regulation of gendered behavior in everyday life. Sex Roles, 62(9–10), 635–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Experimental Methods in Cognitive and Social SciencesTomsk State UniversityTomskRussian Federation
  2. 2.Mental Health Research Institute, Tomsk National Research Medical CenterRussian Academy of SciencesTomskRussian Federation
  3. 3.Skolkovo Institute of Science and TechnologySkolkovo Innovation CenterMoscowRussian Federation
  4. 4.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of OregonEugeneUSA

Personalised recommendations