Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Structural Social Psychological View of Gender Differences in Cooperation

  • Feminist Forum
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We analyze differences in cooperation between men and women in social dilemma settings. Using a structural social psychological framework, we examine how the actor, the encounter, the microstructure, and the macrostructure might influence when gender differences emerge in cooperation. Many of the interaction differences, often linked to innate differences between men and women, are modified when the context is modified. We pay particular attention to how status and identity are connected to such modifications.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andersen, E. R., Bulte, E., Gneezy, U., & List, J. A. (2008). Do women supply more public goods than men? Preliminary experimental evidence from patriarchal societies. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 98, 376–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anthony, D., & Horne, C. (2003). Gender and cooperation: explaining loan repayment in micro-credit groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 293–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashmore, R. D., Del Boca, F. K., & Bilder, S. M. (1995). Construction and validation of the Gender Attitude Inventory, a structured inventory to assess multiple dimensions of gender attitudes. Sex Roles, 32, 753–785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in Western man. Boston: Beacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron-Cohen, S. (2003). The essential difference: Men, women, and the extreme male brain. London: Allan Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Briton, N. J., & Hall, J. A. (1995). Beliefs about female and male nonverbal communication. Sex Roles, 32, 79–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brock-Utne, B. (1989). Gender and cooperation in the laboratory. Journal of Peace Research, 26, 47–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown-Kruse, J., & Hummels, J. D. (1993). Gender effects in laboratory public goods: do individuals put their money where their mouth is? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 22, 255–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, P. J., & Reitzes, D. C. (1981). The link between identity and role performance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 83–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, P. J., & Reitzes, D. C. (1991). An identity theory approach to commitment. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 239–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1995). Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual selections. American Psychologist, 50, 164–168.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Kenrick, D. T. (1998). Evolutionary social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (vol. 2, pp. 982–1026, 4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, M. D. (1976). Communication and sex effects in a five-person prisoner’s dilemma game. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 273–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A. (1999). Staying alive: evolution, culture, and women’s intrasexual aggression. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2, 203–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coser, L. A. (1956). The functions of social conflict. Glencoe: Free.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cota, A. A., & Dion, K. L. (1986). Salience of gender and sex composition of ad hoc groups: an experimental test of distinctiveness theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 770–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, F. (1982). Relative deprivation and working women. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 169–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: an interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deaux, K., & Martin, D. (2003). Interpersonal networks and social categories: specifying levels of context in identity processes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 101–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: evolved disposition versus social roles. The American Psychologist, 54, 408–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckel, C. C. (2007). Economic games for social scientists. In M. Webster Jr., & J. Sell (Eds.), Laboratory experiments in the social sciences (pp. 497–515). London: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. (2008). Forecasting risk attitudes: an experimental study using actual and forecast gamble choices. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellemers, N., van Knippenberg, A., de Vries, N., & Wilke, H. (1999). Social identification and permeability of group boundaries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 497–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geary, D. C. (1998). Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, G. (2009). Status and the gender stereotyped personality traits: Toward an integration. Sex Roles, this issue.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Goehring, D. J., & Kahan, J. P. (1976). The uniform N-person prisoner’s dilemma game. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 20, 111–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gneezy, U., Niederle, M., & Rustichini, A. (2003). Performance in competitive environments: gender differences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 1049–1074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gresky, D. M., Ten Eyck, L. L., Lord, C. G., & McIntyre, R. B. (2005). Effects of salient multiple identities on women’s performance under mathematics stereotype threat. Sex Roles, 53, 703–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. A. (1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 845–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. (2002). Blatant stereotype threat and women’s math performance: self-handicapping as a strategic means to cope with obtrusive negative performance expectations. Sex Roles, 47, 193–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N., & MacCoun, R. J. (1985). Role expectations in social dilemmas: sex roles and task motivations in groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1547–1556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koenig, A. M., & Eagly, A. H. (2005). Stereotype threat in men on a test of social sensitivity. Sex Roles, 52, 489–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollock, P. (1998). Social dilemmas: the anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 183–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuwabara, K. (2005). Nothing to fear but feat itself: fear of fear, fear of greed and gender effects in two-person asymmetric social dilemmas. Social Forces, 84, 1257–1272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawler, E. J., Ridgeway, C., & Markovsky, B. (1993). Structural social psychology and the micro-macro problem. Sociological Theory, 11, 268–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, E. A. (2005). The case of the female orgasm. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorber, J. (1994). Paradoxes of gender. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mealey, L. (2000). Sex differences: Developmental and evolutionary strategies. San Diego: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messick, D. M., & Brewer, M. B. (1983). Solving social dilemma. In L. Wheeler, & P. Shaver (Eds.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology 4 (pp. 11–44). Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakes, P. (1987). The salience of social categories. In J. C. Turner (Ed.), Rediscovering the social group (pp. 117–41). New York: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapoport, A., & Chammah, A. M. (1965). Prisoner’s dilemma: A study of conflict and cooperation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rashotte, L. S., & Webster Jr., M. (2005). Gender status beliefs. Social Science Research, 34, 618–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L. (1997). Interaction and the conservation of gender inequality: considering employment. American Sociological Review, 62, 218–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). Social status and group structure. In M. A. Hogg, & S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 352–375). Maulden: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L. (2006). Gender as an organizing force in social relations: implications for the future of inequality. In F. D. Blau, M. C. Brinton, & D. B. Grusky (Eds.), The declining significance of gender? (pp. 265–288). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L. (2007). Gender as a group process: Implications for the persistence on inequality. In S. Correll (Ed.), Advances in group processes (pp. 311–333). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1999). The gender system and interaction. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 191–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L., & Bourg, C. (2004). Gender as status: An expectation states theory approach. In A. H. Eagly, A. E. Beall, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender (pp. 217–241). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L., & Correll, S. J. (2004). Unpacking the gender system: a theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender & Society, 18, 510–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L., Boyle, E. H., Kuipers, K., & Robinson, D. (1998). How do status beliefs develop? The role of resources and interaction. American Sociological Review, 63, 331–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risman, B. (2004). Gender as a social structure: theory wrestling with activism. Gender & Society, 18, 429–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. A. (1955). Diagrammatic exposition of a theory of public expenditure. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 37, 350–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwieren, C., & Sutter, M. (2008). Trust in cooperation or ability? An experimental study on gender differences. Economics Letters, 99, 494–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sell, J. (1988). Types of public goods and free riding. In E. J. Lawler, & B. Markovsky (Eds.), Advances in group processes (vol. 5, (pp. 119–140)). Greenwich: JAI.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sell, J., & Wilson, R. K. (1991). Levels of information and public goods. Social Forces, 70, 107–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sell, J., & Son, Y. (1997). Comparing public goods and common pool resources: three experiments. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 118–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sell, J., Griffith, W. I., & Wilson, R. K. (1993). Are women more cooperative than men? Social Psychology Quarterly, 56, 211–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sell, J., Chen, Z. -Y., Hunter-Holmes, P., & Johansson, A. (2002). A cross-cultural comparison of resource goods and public goods. Social Psychology Quarterly, 65, 285–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, B. (2003). Sex, fear and greed: a social dilemma analysis of gender and cooperation. Social Forces, 82, 35–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinervo, B., & Baslo, A. L. (1996). Testing adaptation sung phenotypic manipulations. In M. R. Roe, & G. V. Lauder (Eds.), Adaptation (pp. 149–187). San Diego: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Ellemers, N. (1997). Self-stereotyping in the face of threats to group status and distinctiveness: the role of group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 538–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relations to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 29–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: how stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. The American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 34, (pp. 379–440)). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (1996). Gender, control, and interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 193–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stockard, J., van de Kragt, A. J. C., & Dodge, P. (1988). Gender roles and behavior in social dilemmas: are there sex differences in cooperation and in its justification? Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 154–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic Interactionism: A social structural version. Menlo Park: Benjamin Cummings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. C. (1999). Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization theories. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 6–34). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Vugt, M., De Cremer, D., & Janssen, D. P. (2007). Gender differences in cooperation and competition: the male-warrior hypothesis. Psychological Science, 18, 19–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, D. G., & Berger, J. (1997). Gender and interpersonal task behaviors: status expectation accounts. Sociological Perspectives, 40, 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1, 125–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, C., & Fenstermaker, S. (1993). Power, inequality, and the accomplishment of gender: An ethnomethodological view. In P. England (Ed.), Theory on gender/feminism on theory (pp. 151–174). New York: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, W., & Eagly, A. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699–727.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yamagishi, T. (1988). The provisioning of a sanctioning system in the United States and Japan. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 265–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

    Jane Sell

  2. University of Montana, Missoula, MT, USA

    Kathy J. Kuipers

Authors
  1. Jane Sell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kathy J. Kuipers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jane Sell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sell, J., Kuipers, K.J. A Structural Social Psychological View of Gender Differences in Cooperation. Sex Roles 61, 317–324 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9597-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9597-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation