Does gender composition affect group decision outcomes? evidence from a laboratory experiment

Political Behavior

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 51-67

  Hannagan, Rebecca J ^a   Larimer, Christopher W ^b  

^a NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

Critical mass; Decision making; Gender; Gender composition; Gender gap; Groups

Indexed keywords

EID: 76649101424     PISSN: 01909320     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11109-009-9087-z     Document Type: Article

References (95)

1. Alexander, D., & Andersen, K. (1993). Gender as a factor in the attribution of leadership traits. Political Research Quarterly, 46, 527-545.
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.
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.
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.
6. Bolton, G., & Ockenfels, A. (2000). A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. The American Economic Review, 90, 166-193.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
14. Burrell, B. (1994). A woman's place is in the house. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
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.
16. Cahill, L. (2006). Why sex matters for neuroscience. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 7, 477-484. doi: 10. 1038/nrn1909.
17. Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
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.
19. Croson, R., & Buchan, N. (1999). Gender and culture: International experimental evidence from trust games. The American Economic Review, 89, 386-391.
20. Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Quill.
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.
22. Dodson, D., & Carroll, S. (1991). Reshaping the agenda: Women in state legislatures. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for American Women and Politics.
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.
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.
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.
26. Eckel, C. C., & Wilson, R. K. (2003). Conditional trust: Sex, race, and facial expressions in a trust game. Harvard University, Working Paper.
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.
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.
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.
30. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theories and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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.
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.
33. Gutmann, A. (1980). Liberal equality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34. Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Communication accuracy and expressive style. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.
35. Hannagan, R. J. (2008). Gendered political behavior: A Darwinian feminist approach. Sex Roles, 59, 465-475. doi: 10. 1007/s11199-008-9417-3.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
42. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. The American Psychologist, 60, 581-592. doi: 10. 1037/0003-066X. 60. 6. 581.
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.
44. Jewell, M. E., & Whicker, M. L. (1995). Legislative leadership in the American States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
45. Kanter, R. M. (1977a). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
54. LeDoux, J. (1996). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. New York: Simon and Schuster.
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.
56. Maccoby, E. (1998). The two sexes. Cambridge, MA: Belnap Press.
57. Marcus, G. (2002). The sentimental citizen: Emotion in democratic politics. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
58. McDermott, R. (2004). The feeling of rationality: The meaning of neuroscientific advances for political science. Perspectives on Politics, 2, 691-706.
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.
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.
61. Niven, D. (1998). Party elites and women candidates: The shape of bias. Women & Politics, 19, 57-80. doi: 10. 1300/J014v19n02_03.
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.
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.
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.
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.
66. Ostrom, E., & Walker, J. (2003). Trust and reciprocity. New York: Russell Sage.
67. Pitkin, H. (1984). Fortune is a woman. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
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.
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.
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.
71. Reingold, B. (2000). Representing women: Sex, gender, and legislative behavior in Arizona and California. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
72. Ridgeway, C., & Correll, S. (2000). Limiting inequality through interaction: The end(s) of gender. Contemporary Sociology, 29, 110-120. doi: 10. 2307/2654936.
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.
74. Rosenthal, C. S. (1998). When women lead: Integrative leadership in state legislatures. New York: Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
80. Sell, J. (1997). Gender, strategies, and contributions to public goods. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 252-265. doi: 10. 2307/2787085.
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.
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.
83. Solnick, S. (2001). Gender differences in the ultimatum game. Economic Inquiry, 39, 189-200.
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.
85. Thomas, S. (1991). The impact of women on state legislative policies. The Journal of Politics, 53, 958-976. doi: 10. 2307/2131862.
86. Thomas, S. (1994). How women legislate. New York: Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
93. Wolbrecht, C. (2000). The politics of women's rights: Parties, positions, and change. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
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.
95. Young, I. M. (1990). The ideal of community and the politics of difference. In L. Nicholson (Ed.), Feminism/postmodernism. New York: Routledge.