Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation
Next article
Original Article

Sex Differences Concerning Prosocial Behavior in Social Dilemmas Are (Partially) Mediated by Risk Preferences But Not Social Preferences

An In-Depth Analysis Across 10 Countries

Published Online:December 21, 2020https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000434

Abstract

Abstract. Previous results on the prosociality of men and women in social dilemmas are mixed. Studies find more prosocial behavior for men and women; and a meta-analysis (Balliet et al., 2011) reports an overall null effect. Including samples (N = 1,903) from 10 countries that vary concerning gender inequality (e.g., China, Colombia, Sweden), we investigated sex differences in social dilemmas and drivers of these potential differences. We found that men behaved more prosocially, in that they transferred more of their endowment to their interaction partner. This sex difference was descriptively observed for all countries and was partially mediated by differences in risk but not social preferences. Gender inequality did not predict the difference in magnitude of sex differences between countries.

References

  • Balliet, D., Li, N. P., Macfarlan, S. J., & Van Vugt, M. (2011). Sex differences in cooperation: A meta-analytic review of social dilemmas. Psychological Bulletin, 137(6), 881–909. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025354 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Balliet, D., Parks, C., & Joireman, J. (2009). Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analysis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(4), 533–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209105040 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Balliet, D., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2013a). Trust, conflict, and cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 139(5), 1090–1112. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030939 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Balliet, D., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2013b). Trust, punishment, and cooperation across 18 societies: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(4), 363–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613488533 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Böckler, A., Tusche, A., & Singer, T. (2018). The structure of human prosociality revisited: Corrigendum and addendum to Böckler, Tusche, and Singer (2016). Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(6), 754–759. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617722200 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Buss, D. M. (1995). Evolutionary psychology: A new paradigm for psychological science. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0601_1 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Buss, D. M., & Kenrick, D. T. (1998). Evolutionary social psychology. In D. T. GilbertS. T. FiskeG. LindzeyEds., The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 982–1026). McGraw-Hill. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 367–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.367 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Charness, G., & Gneezy, U. (2012). Strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 83(1), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.06.007 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.47.2.448 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dorrough, A. R., & Glöckner, A. (2016). Multinational investigation of cross-societal cooperation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(39), 10836–10841. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1601294113 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dorrough, A. R., & Glöckner, A. (2019). A cross‐national analysis of sex differences in prisoner’s dilemma games. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(1), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12287 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. EckesH. M. TrautnerEds., The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Taylor & Francis. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54(6), 408–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Eagly, A. H. (2009). The his and hers of prosocial behavior: An examination of the social psychology of gender. American Psychologist, 64, 644–658. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.64.8.644 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P. van LangeA. KruglanskiE. T. HigginsEds., Handbook of theories in social psychology (Vol. 2). Sage Publications. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Engel, C. (2011). Dictator games: A meta study. Experimental Economics, 14, 583–610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-011-9283-7 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Engel, C., & Zhurakhovska, L. (2016). When is the risk of cooperation worth taking? The prisoner’s dilemma as a game of multiple motives. Applied Economics Letters, 23(16), 1157–1161. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2016.1139672 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Falk, A., Becker, A., Dohmen, T., Enke, B., Huffman, D., & Sunde, U. (2018). Global evidence on economic preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(4), 1645–1692. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjy013 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Falk, A., & Hermle, J. (2018). Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality. Science, 362(6412), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aas9899 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Glöckner, A., & Hilbig, B. E. (2012). Risk is relative: Risk aversion yields cooperation rather than defection in cooperation-friendly environments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(3), 546–553. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0224-z First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Grosch, K., & Rau, A. R. (2017). Gender differences in honesty: The role of social value orientation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 62, 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2017.07.008 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2005). Risk aversion and incentive effects: New data without order effects. American Economic Review, 95(3), 902–912. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4132749 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Mead, M. (1935). Sex and temperament in three primitive societies, Morrow. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Meyers-Levy, J., & Loken, B. (2015). Revisiting gender differences: What we know and what lies ahead. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(1), 129–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.06.003 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Meleady, R., & Seger, C. R. (2016). Imagined contact encourages prosocial behavior towards outgroup members. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(4), 447–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430215612225 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Murphy, R. O., Ackermann, K. A., & Handgraaf, M. (2011). Measuring social value orientation. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(8), 771–781. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1804189 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Nauta, A., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van Der Vaart, T. (2002). Social value orientation, organizational goal concerns and interdepartmental problem-solving behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(2), 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.136 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2005). Gender differences in social support: A question of skill or responsiveness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(1), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.79 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Olsson, M., Froehlich, L., Dorrough, A. R., & Martiny, S. E. (2020). The hers and his of prosociality across 10 countries. Retrieved from https://osf.io/6kyvh/?view_only=99d5b06962944aa882722bb778fdb759 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Romano, A., Balliet, D., Yamagishi, T., & Liu, J. H. (2017). Parochial trust and cooperation across 17 societies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 14(48), 12702–12707. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1712921114 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 98–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.98 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schwartz, S. H., & Rubel-Lifschitz, T. (2009). Cross-national variation in the size of sex differences in values: Effects of gender equality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015546 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Thielmann, I., Böhm, R., & Hilbig, B. E. (2015). Different games for different motives: Comment on Haesevoets, Folmer, and Van Hiel (2015). European Journal of Personality, 29(4), 506–508. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2007 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Van Lange, P. A. M. (1999). The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality in outcomes: An integrative model of social value orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 337–349. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.337 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wahl, L. M., & Nowak, M. A. (1999). The continuous prisoner’s dilemma: I. Linear reactive strategies. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 3(7), 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.1999.0996 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Willer, R., Wimer, C., & Owens, L. A. (2015). What drives the gender gap in charitable giving? Lower empathy leads men to give less to poverty relief. Social Science Research, 52, 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.12.014 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Yamagishi, T. (1988). The provision of a sanctioning system in the United States and Japan. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 265–271. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786924 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Yost-Dubrow, R., & Dunham, Y. (2018). Evidence for a relationship between trait gratitude and prosocial behaviour. Cognition and Emotion, 32(2), 397–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2017.1289153 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar