Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 47, Issue 7–8, pp 301–319 | Cite as

Theorizing Gender for Experimental Game Theory: Experiments with “Sex Status” and “Merit Status” in an Asymmetric Game

  • Peregrine Schwartz-Shea
Article

Abstract

In experimental game-theoretic research, to the extent that sex has been considered at all, the approach has been to focus on the individual level of analysis. This paper reports the results of experiments designed to focus on sex/gender and to expand the level of analysis to include the institutional level. An asymmetric game was designed such that players in the “male” and “female” institutional locations had 3 and 2 alternatives, respectively. Players earned the institutional locations based on a test, so that top and bottom scorers respectively “merited” the 3- and 2-alternatives locations. Game-theoretic understandings of sex-of-player were compared to the expectations states theory concept of “sex status”; that is, men expect and are expected to perform more competently than women. Results indicated that top-scorer men and women behave similarly; bottom-scorer men “resist” their low merit status (behaving the most “rationally” of all player groups); bottom-scorer women “accept” their low merit status (behaving the most “irrationally” of all player groups). Whereas game theory cannot provide a coherent understanding of these findings, the concept of sex status helps to interpret the behavior of all four player groups and shows how judgments about “rationality” and “irrationality” depend critically on the interpretive framework used.

game theory experiments sex gender feminism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Anderson, E. (1995). Feminist epistemology. An interpretation and a defense. Hypatia, 10 50-84.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, S. B., & Eckel, C. (1998). The economic value of status. Journal of Socio-Economics, 27 495-515.Google Scholar
  3. Barrett, F. (1996). The organizational construction of hegemonic masculinity: The case of the U.S. Navy. Gender, Work and Organization, 3 129-142.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, G. S. (1976). The economic approach to behavior. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Berger, J., Ridgeway, C. L., Fisek, M. H., & Norman, R. Z. (1998). The legitimation and delegitimation of power and prestige orders. American Sociological Review, 63 379-405.Google Scholar
  7. Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. M. (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 287-292.Google Scholar
  8. Brown-Kruse, J., & Hummels, D. (1993). Gender effects in laboratory public goods contribution: Do individuals put their money where their month is? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 22 255-267.Google Scholar
  9. Buchanan, J. M. (1975). The limits of liberty: Between anarchy and Leviathan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Clair, R. P. (1993). The bureaucratization, commodification, and the privatization of sexual harassment through institutional discourse: A study of the “Big Ten” universities. Management Communication Quarterly, 7 123-157.Google Scholar
  11. Coward, R. (1985). Female desires: How they are sought, bought, and packaged. New York: Grove Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dawes, R. M., McTavish, J., & Shaklee, H. (1977). Behavior, communication, and assumptions about other peoples' behaivor in a commons dilemma situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35 1-11.Google Scholar
  13. Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94 369-389.Google Scholar
  14. Duerst-Lahti, G., & Kelly, R. M. (Eds.). (1995). Gender power, leadership, and governance. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dunn, D., Almquist, E. M., & Chafetz, J. S. (1993). Macrostructural perspectives on gender inequality. In P. England (Ed.), Theory on gender/feminism on theory (pp. 68-90). New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  16. Eagly, A., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 30 143-158.Google Scholar
  17. Eckel, C., & Grossman, P. (1996). The relative price of fairness: Gender differences in a punishment game. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 30 143-158.Google Scholar
  18. Eckel, C., & Grossman, P. (1998). Are women less selfish than men? Evidence from dictator games. The Economic Journal, 108 726-736.Google Scholar
  19. Eckel, C., & Grossman, P. (in press). Differences in the economic decisions of men and women: Experimental evidence. In C. Plott & V. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of experimental results. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  20. Flammang, J. A. (1997). Women's political voice: How women are transforming the practice and study of politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Foschi, M., Larissa L., & Siegerson, K. (1994). Gender and double standards in the assessment of job applicants. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57 326-339.Google Scholar
  22. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hardin, G. J. (1977). The limits of altruism: An ecologist's view of survival. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Harding, S. (1993). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity”? In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 49-82). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Hirschmann, N. J. (1989). Freedom, recognition, and obligation: A feminist approach. American Political Science Review, 83 1227-1244.Google Scholar
  26. Hoffman, E., & Spitzer, M. L. (1985). Entitlements, rights and fairness: Some experimental evidence of subjects' conceptions of distributive justice. Journal of Legal Studies, 14 259-298.Google Scholar
  27. Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (1989). Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Isaac, R. M., Schmidtz, D., & Walker, J. M. (1989). The assurance problem in a laboratory market. Public Choice, 62 217-236.Google Scholar
  29. Johnson, C. (1994). Gender, legitimate authority, and leader-subordinate conversations. American Sociological Review, 59 122-135.Google Scholar
  30. Knottnerus, J. D. (1997). Social structural analysis and status generalization: The contributions and potential of expectations states theory. In J. Smatka, J. Skvoretz, & J. Berger (Eds.), Status, Network and Structure. (pp. 119-136). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lipman-Blumen, J. (1984). Gender roles and power. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  32. Lipsey, M. W. (1990). Design sensitivity: Statistical power for experimental research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Luce, R. D., & Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and decisions: Introduction and critical survey. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. Margolis, H. (1984). Selfishness, altruism, and rationality: A theory of social choice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Molm, L. D. (1985). Gender and power use: An experimental analysis of behavior and perceptions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48 285-300.Google Scholar
  36. Orbell, J. M., & Dawes, R. M. (1991). A “cognitive miser” theory of cooperators' advantage. American Political Science Review, 85 515-528.Google Scholar
  37. Orbell, J. M., Dawes, R. M., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (1994). Trust, social categories, and individuals: The case of gender. Motivation and Emotion, 18 109-128.Google Scholar
  38. Ortmann, A., & Tichy, L. K. (1999). Gender differences in the laboratory: Evidence from prisoner's dilemma games. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 39 327-340.Google Scholar
  39. Pheterson, G. (1986). Alliances between women: Overcoming internalized oppression and internalized domination. Signs, 12 146-160.Google Scholar
  40. Ridgeway, C. L. (1988). Gender differences in task groups: Astatus and legitimacy account. In M. Webster, Jr., & M. Foschi. (Eds.), Status generalization: New theory and research (pp. 188-206). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Ridgeway, C. L. (1993). Gender, status, and the social psychology of expectations. In P. England (Ed.), Theory on gender/feminism on theory (pp. 175-197). New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  42. Sapiro, V. (1979). Sex and games: On oppression and rationality. British Journal of Political Science, 9 385-408.Google Scholar
  43. Sapiro, V. (1990). The women's movement and the creation of gender consciousness: Social movements as socialization agents. In O. Ichilov (Ed.), Political socialization, citizenship education, and democracy (pp. 266-280). New York: Teacher's College Press.Google Scholar
  44. Schwartz-Shea, P. (2001, September). Curricular visions: Doctoral program requirements, offerings, and the meanings ofpolitical science.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  45. Sell, J. (1997). Gender, strategies and contributions to public goods. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60 252-265.Google Scholar
  46. Simmons, R. T., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (1993). Method, metaphor, and understanding: When is the commons not a tragedy? In T. L. Anderson & R. T. Simmons (Eds.), The political economy of customs and culture: Informal solutions to the commons problem (pp. 1-11). Latham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  47. Staudt, K., & Weaver, W. G. (1997). Political science and feminisms: Integration or transformation? New York: Twayne.Google Scholar
  48. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). Framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211 453-458.Google Scholar
  49. Vanberg, V. J., & Congleton, R. D. (1992). Rationality, morality, and exit. American Political Science Review, 86 418-431.Google Scholar
  50. van de Kragt, A. J. C., Orbell, J. M., & Dawes, R. M. (1983). The minimal contributing set as a solution to public goods problems. American Political Science Review, 77 112-122.Google Scholar
  51. Weimer, D. L. (Ed.). (1995). Institutional design. Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  52. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1 125-151.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peregrine Schwartz-Shea
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of UtahSalt Lake City

Personalised recommendations