Advertisement

In-Group Cooperation and Gender: Evidence from an Interdisciplinary Study

  • Anastasia PeshkovskayaEmail author
  • Tatiana Babkina
  • Mikhail Myagkov
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)

Abstract

Wide range of group factors is of particular interest since they are the most significant reason for the differentiation of human economic behavior between two poles—altruism and egoism. This study presented the results of experiments aimed to investigate how group composition (heterogeneous vs. homogeneous in terms of a group members’ gender) affected cooperation and group outcome. Applying the methodology of experimental economics and social psychology, we found that heterogeneous groups were most effective in terms of cooperation.

Keywords

Behavior Cooperation Gender composition Groups 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by The Tomsk State University competitiveness improvement program.

References

  1. 1.
    Andreoni, J., Harbaugh, W.T., Vesterlund L: Altruism in experiments. In: Behavioural and Experimental Economics, pp. 6–13. Springer, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balliet, D., Li, N.P., Macfarlan, S.J., Van Vugt, M.: Sex differences in cooperation: a meta-analytic review of social dilemmas. Psychol. Bull. 137(6), 881–909 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Croson, R., Gneezy, U.: Gender differences in preferences. J. Econ. Lit. 47(2), 448–474 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bailey, D.H., Winegard, B., Oxford, J., Geary, D.C.: Sex differences in in-group cooperation vary dynamically with competitive conditions and outcomes. Evol. Psychol. 10(1), 102–119 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ellingsen, T., Johannesson, M., Mollerstrom, J., Munkhammar, S.: Gender differences in social framing effects. Econ. Lett. 118(3), 470–472 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aronson, E.: The Social Animal. WH Freeman & Co, San Francisco (1972)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bowlby, J.: Attachment and loss. In: Attachment. Basic Books, New York (1969)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fischbacher, U., Gächter, S., Fehr, E.: Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Econ. Lett. 71(3), 397–404 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Peshkovskaya, A., Babkina, T., Myagkov, M.: Gender effects and cooperation in collective action: a laboratory experiment. Rationality and Society (2019). https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463119858788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nowak, M.A., Sigmund, K.: Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring. Nature 393(6685), 573–577 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Riolo, R.L., Cohen, M.D., Axelrod, R.: Evolution of cooperation without reciprocity. Nature 414(6862), 441–443 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dasgupta, N.: Implicit ingroup favoritism, outgroup favoritism, and their behavioral manifestations. Soc. Justice Res. 17(2), 143–169 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tajfel, H., Billig, M.G., Bundy, R.P., Flament, C.: Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 1(2), 149–178 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Peshkovskaya, A., Myagkov, M., Babkina, T., Lukinova, E.: Do women socialize better? Evidence from a study on sociality effects on gender differences in cooperative behavior. CEUR Work. Proc. 1968, 41–51 (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Babkina, T., Myagkov, M., Lukinova, E., Peshkovskaya, A., Menshikova, O., Berkman, E.T.: Choice of the group increases intra-cooperation. CEUR Work. Proc. 1627, 13–23 (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Myagkov, M., Shchekotin, E.V., Kashpur, V.V., Goiko, V.L., Baryshev, A.A.: Activity of non-parliamentary opposition communities in social networks in the context of the Russian 2016 parliamentary election. East Eur. Polit. 34(4), 483–502 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1080/21599165.2018.1532411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peshkovskaya, A.G., Babkina, T.S., Myagkov, M.G., Kulikov, I.A., Ekshova, K.V., Harriff, K.: The socialization effect on decision making in the Prisoner’s Dilemma game: an eye-tracking study. PLoS ONE (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peshkovskaya, A., Babkina, T., Myagkov, M.: Social context reveals gender differences in cooperative behavior. J. Bioecon. 20, 213 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-018-9271-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cox, J., Deck, C.: When are women more generous than men? Econ. Inq. 44(6), 587–598 (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Feingold, A.: Gender differences in personality: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 116, 429–456 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Greig, F., Bohnet, I.: Exploring gendered behavior in the field with experiments: why public goods are provided by women in a Nairobi slum. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 70, 1–9 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eagly, A.H.: The his and hers of prosocial behavior: an examination of the social psychology of gender. Am. Psychol. 64, 644–658 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Orbell, J.M.: Dawes R and Schwartz-Shea P: Trust, social categories and individuals: The case of gender. Motiv. Emot. 18, 109–128 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maccoby, E.: E,: Gender and relationships: a developmental account. Am. Psychol. 45, 513–520 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Charness, G., Rustichini, A.: Gender differences in cooperation with group membership. Games Econ. Behav. 72(1), 77–85 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Eckel, C.C., Grossman, P.G.: Differences in the economic decisions of men and women: experimental evidence. In: Plott, C., Smith, V. (eds.) Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, pp. 509–519. Elsevier, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dufwenberg, M., Muren, A.: Gender composition in teams. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 61, 50–54 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Eckel, C.C., Grossman, P.J.: Chivalry and solidarity in ultimatum games. Econ. Inq. 39, 171–188 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vugt, M., Cremer, D.D., Janssen, D.P.: Gender differences in cooperation and competition: the male-warrior hypothesis. Psychol. Sci. 18(1), 19–23 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yamagishi, T., Mifune, N.: Social exchange and solidarity: in-group love or out-group hate? Evol. Hum. Behav. 30, 229–237 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.02.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fischbacher, U.: z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Exp. Econ. 10(2), 171–178 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    King, W.C., Miles, E.W., Kniska, J.: 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 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Experimental Methods in Cognitive and Social Sciences, Tomsk State UniversityTomskRussian Federation
  2. 2.Mental Health Research Institute, Tomsk National Research Medical Center, Russian Academy of SciencesTomskRussian Federation
  3. 3.Institute of Education, National Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussian Federation
  4. 4.Department of Control and Applied MathematicsMoscow Institute of Physics and Technology (State University)MoscowRussian Federation
  5. 5.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of OregonEugeneUSA

Personalised recommendations