Political Behavior

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 51–67 | Cite as

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

Original Paper


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.


Gender Gender composition Decision making Groups Critical mass Gender gap 


  1. Alexander, D., & Andersen, K. (1993). Gender as a factor in the attribution of leadership traits. Political Research Quarterly, 46, 527–545.Google Scholar
  2. 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.
  3. Ashraf, N., Bohnet, I., & Piankov, N. (2006). Decomposing trust and trustworthiness. Experimental Economics, 9, 193–208. doi:10.1007/s10683-006-9122-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolton, G., & Ockenfels, A. (2000). A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. The American Economic Review, 90, 166–193.Google Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burrell, B. (1994). A woman’s place is in the house. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  15. Cahill, L. (2003). Sex-related influences on the neurobiology of emotionally influenced memory. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 985, 163–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cahill, L. (2006). Why sex matters for neuroscience. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 7, 477–484. doi:10.1038/nrn1909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Croson, R., & Buchan, N. (1999). Gender and culture: International experimental evidence from trust games. The American Economic Review, 89, 386–391.Google Scholar
  20. Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Quill.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Dodson, D., & Carroll, S. (1991). Reshaping the agenda: Women in state legislatures. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for American Women and Politics.Google Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Eckel, C. C., & Wilson, R. K. (2003). Conditional trust: Sex, race, and facial expressions in a trust game. Harvard University, Working Paper.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theories and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gutmann, A. (1980). Liberal equality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Communication accuracy and expressive style. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Hannagan, R. J. (2008). Gendered political behavior: A Darwinian feminist approach. Sex Roles, 59, 465–475. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9417-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. The American Psychologist, 60, 581–592. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.Google Scholar
  44. Jewell, M. E., & Whicker, M. L. (1995). Legislative leadership in the American States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  45. Kanter, R. M. (1977a). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. LeDoux, J. (1996). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  55. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Maccoby, E. (1998). The two sexes. Cambridge, MA: Belnap Press.Google Scholar
  57. Marcus, G. (2002). The sentimental citizen: Emotion in democratic politics. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  58. McDermott, R. (2004). The feeling of rationality: The meaning of neuroscientific advances for political science. Perspectives on Politics, 2, 691–706.Google Scholar
  59. 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
  60. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Niven, D. (1998). Party elites and women candidates: The shape of bias. Women & Politics, 19, 57–80. doi:10.1300/J014v19n02_03.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.Google Scholar
  63. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ostrom, E., & Walker, J. (2003). Trust and reciprocity. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  67. Pitkin, H. (1984). Fortune is a woman. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  68. 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
  69. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Reingold, B. (2000). Representing women: Sex, gender, and legislative behavior in Arizona and California. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  72. Ridgeway, C., & Correll, S. (2000). Limiting inequality through interaction: The end(s) of gender. Contemporary Sociology, 29, 110–120. doi:10.2307/2654936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rosenthal, C. S. (1998). When women lead: Integrative leadership in state legislatures. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  75. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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
  77. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sell, J. (1997). Gender, strategies, and contributions to public goods. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 252–265. doi:10.2307/2787085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 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
  83. Solnick, S. (2001). Gender differences in the ultimatum game. Economic Inquiry, 39, 189–200.Google Scholar
  84. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Thomas, S. (1991). The impact of women on state legislative policies. The Journal of Politics, 53, 958–976. doi:10.2307/2131862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Thomas, S. (1994). How women legislate. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  87. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 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
  89. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wolbrecht, C. (2000). The politics of women’s rights: Parties, positions, and change. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  94. 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
  95. Young, I. M. (1990). The ideal of community and the politics of difference. In L. Nicholson (Ed.), Feminism/postmodernism. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceNorthern Illinois UniversityDeKalbUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of Northern IowaCedar FallsUSA

Personalised recommendations