Theorizing gender for experimental game theory: Experiments with "sex status" and "merit status" in an asymmetric game

Sex Roles

Volumn 47, Issue 7-8, 2002, Pages 301-319

  Schwartz Shea, Peregrine ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

Author keywords

experiments; feminism; game theory; gender; sex

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036961556     PISSN: 03600025     EISSN: 15732762     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1021474929976     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Anderson, E. (1995). Feminist epistemology. An interpretation and a defense. Hypatia, 10, 50-84.
2. Ball, S. B., & Eckel, C. (1998). The economic value of status. Journal of Socio-Economies, 27, 495-515.
3. Barrett, F. (1996). The organizational construction of hegemonic masculinity: The case of the U.S. Navy. Gender, Work and Organization, 3, 129-142.
4. Becker, G. S. (1976). The economic approach to behavior. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
5. Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
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.
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.
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.
9. Buchanan, J. M. (1975). The limits of liberty: Between anarchy and Leviathan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
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.
11. Coward, R. (1985). Female desires: How they are sought, bought, and packaged. New York: Grove Press.
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.
13. Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369-389.
14. Duerst-Lahti, G. & Kelly, R. M. (Eds.). (1995). Gender power, leadership, and governance. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
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.
16. Eagly, A., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 30, 143-158.
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.
18. Eckel, C., & Grossman, P. (1998). Are women less selfish than men? Evidence from dictator games. The Economic Journal, 108, 726-736.
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.
20. Flammang, J. A. (1997). Women's political voice: How women are transforming the practice and study of politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
21. Foschi, M., Larissa L., & Siegerson, K. (1994). Gender and double standards in the assessment of job applicants. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 326-339.
22. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23. Hardin, G. J. (1977). The limits of altruism: An ecologist's view of survival. Bloomington. IN: Indiana University Press.
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.
25. Hirschmann, N. J. (1989). Freedom, recognition, and obligation: A feminist approach. American Political Science Review, 83, 1227-1244.
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.
27. Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow. S. (1989). Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley.
28. Isaac, R. M., Schmidtz, D., & Walker, J. M. (1989). The assurance problem in a laboratory market. Public Choice, 62, 217-236.
29. Johnson, C. (1994). Gender, legitimate authority, and leadersubordinate conversations. American Sociological Review, 59, 122-135.
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.
31. Lipman-Blumen, J. (1984). Gender roles and power. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
32. Lipsey, M. W. (1990). Design sensitivity: Statistical power for experimental research. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.
33. Luce, R. D., & Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and decisions: Introduction and critical survey. New York: Wiley.
34. Margolis, H. (1984). Selfishness, altruism, and rationality: A theory of social choice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
35. Molm, L. D. (1985). Gender and power use: An experimental analysis of behavior and perceptions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 285-300.
36. Orbell, J. M., & Dawes, R. M. (1991). A "cognitive miser" theory of cooperators' advantage. American Political Science Review, 85, 515-528.
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.
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.
39. Pheterson, G. (1986). Alliances between women: Overcoming internalized oppression and internalized domination. Signs, 12, 146-160.
40. Ridgeway, C. L. (1988). Gender differences in task groups: A status and legitimacy account. In M. Webster, Jr., & M. Foschi. (Eds.). Status generalization: New theory and research (pp. 188-206). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
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.
42. Sapiro, V. (1979). Sex and games: On oppression and rationality. British Journal of Political Science, 9, 385-408.
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.
44. Schwartz-Shea, P. (2001. September). Curricular visions: Doctoral program requirements, offerings, and the meanings of "political science." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. San Francisco, CA.
45. Sell, J. (1997). Gender, strategies and contributions to public goods. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 252-265.
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.
47. Staudt, K., & Weaver, W. G. (1997). Political science and feminisms: Integration or transformation? New York: Twayne.
48. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). Framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.
49. Vanberg, V. J., & Congleton, R. D. (1992). Rationality, morality, and exit. American Political Science Review, 86, 418-431.
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.
51. Weimer, D. L. (Ed.). (1995). Institutional design. Boston: Kluwer.
52. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1, 125-151.