Economics & Sociology

ISSN: 2071-789X eISSN: 2306-3459 DOI: 10.14254/2071-789X
Index PUBMS: f5512f57-a601-11e7-8f0e-080027f4daa0
Article information
Title: Gender as a Factor Determining Declarations to Cooperate and Cooperative Behaviour among Polish Students
Issue: Vol. 11, No 1, 2018
Published date: 30-03-2018 (print) / 30-03-2018 (online)
Journal: Economics & Sociology
ISSN: 2071-789X, eISSN: 2306-3459
Authors: Urszula Markowska-Przybyła
Wrocław University of Economics

David Mark Ramsey
Wrocław University of Economics
Keywords: cooperation, „Public Goods” game, game theory, intention-behaviour gap, Poland
DOI: 10.14254/2071-789X.2018/11-1/14
Index PUBMS: bf20bc79-8698-11e8-911b-901b0efa6e97
Language: English
Pages: 218-232 (15)
JEL classification: C70, C71, D91, E22
Website: http://www.economics-sociology.eu/?565,en_gender-as-a-factor-determining-declarations-to-cooperate-and-cooperative-behaviour-among-polish-students
Licenses:
Abstract

This article considers the relation between gender and cooperation, measured on the basis of the “Public Goods” game and a questionnaire. Previous studies have not been able to give a clear indication of whether males or females pay more into a common pool, i.e. does one sex show a greater tendency to cooperate? This research presents new results in this field, since it was carried in Poland, where no such large-scale studies have been previously carried out. The study involving 1540 Polish students was carried out in 2014. Three experimental games were used, including the standard one-shot “Public Goods” game. The results of the study did not find any significant differences in the mean levels of cooperative behaviour based on behaviour in the “Public Goods” game between males and females, although there were some differences between the distributions. There is no clear association between behaviour in this game and home region or the size of a student’s home town. On the other hand, there were some clear differences between males’ and females’ declarations regarding aspects of cooperation. In addition, females demonstrated greater variation in their attitudes according to the region and the size of a home town.

Bibliography

1. Andersen, S., Bulte, E., Gneezy, U., and List, J. (2008). Do women supply more public goods than men? Preliminary experimental evidence from matrilineal and patriarchal societies (Artefactual Field Experiments No. 00108). The Field Experiments Website. Re

2. Andreoni, J. (1989). Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence. Journal of Political Economy, 97(6), 1447-1458.

3. Andreoni, J., and Petrie, R. (2008). Beauty, gender and stereotypes: Evidence from laboratory experiments. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29(1), 73-93.

4. Balliet, D., Li, N. P., Macfarlan, S. J., and Van Vugt, M. (2011). Sex Differences in Cooperation: A Meta-Analytic Review of Social Dilemmas. Psychological Bulletin, 137(6), 881-909.

5. Brown-Kruse, J., and Hummels, D. (1993). Gender effects in laboratory public goods contribution: Do individuals put their money where their mouth is? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, (22), 255-267.

6. Borghans, L., Heckman, J. J., Golsteyn, B. H. and Meijers, H. (2009). Gender differences in risk aversion and ambiguity aversion. Journal of the European Economic Association, 7(2-3), 649-658.

7. Cadsby, C. B., and Maynes, E. (1998). Gender and free riding in a threshold public goods game: Experimental evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, (34), 603-620.

8. Chermak, J. M., and Krause, K. (2002). Individual Response, Information, and Intergenerational Common Pool Problems. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 43(1), 47-70.

9. Croson, R., and Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender Differences in Preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 448-474.

10. Deaux, K., and Lewis, L. L. (1984). Structure of gender stereotypes: Interrelationships among components and gender label. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(5), 991-1004.

11. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-role interpretation. Psychology Press.

12. Eagly, A. H., and Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, (100), 283.

13. Eagly, A. H., and Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54(6), 408-423.

14. Eckel, C., and Grossman, P. J. (2008). Men, Women and Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence”. In: C. Plott and V. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results (Vol. 1, pp. 1061-1073). New York: Elsevier.

15. Falk, A., and Fischbacher, U. (2006). A theory of reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 54(2), 293-315.

16. Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull, 116(3), 429-456.

17. Gillian, C. (1982). In a Different Voice. Harvard University Press.

18. Greig, F., and Bohnet, I. (2009). Exploring gendered behavior in the field with experiments: Why public goods are provided by women in a Nairobi slum. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 70(1), 1-9.

19. Gunnthorsdottir, A., Houser, D., and McCabe, K. (2007). Disposition, history and contributions in public goods experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 62(2), 304-315.

20. Isaac, R. M., and Walker, J. M. (1988). Group Size Effects in Public Goods Provision: The Voluntary Contributions Mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103(1), 179-199.

21. Kashima, Y., Yamaguchi, S., Kim, U., Choi, S. C., Gelfand, M. J., and Yuki, M. (1995). Culture, gender, and self: a perspective from individualism-collectivism research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 925-937.

22. Lewicka, M. (2013). Localism and activity as two dimensions of people-place bonding: The role of cultural capital. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 43-53.

23. Lotito, G., Migheli, M., and Ortona, G. (2013). Is cooperation instinctive? Evidence from the response times in a public goods game. Journal of Bioeconomics, 15(2), 123-133.

24. Markowska-Przybyła, U., and Ramsey, D. (2014). A game theoretical study of generalised trust and reciprocation in Poland: I. Theory and experimental design. Operations Research and Decisions, (3), 59-77.

25. Markowska-Przybyla, U., and Ramsey, D. (2015). A game theoretical study of generalised trust and reciprocation in Poland: II. A description of the study group. Operations Research and Decisions, (2), 51-73.

26. Mui, V.-L. (1995). The economics of envy. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 26(3), 311-336.

27. Nowell, C., and Tinkler, S. (1994). The influence of gender on the provision of a public good. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, (25), 25-36.

28. Ockenfels, A., and Bolton, G. E. (2000). ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition. American Economic Review, 90(1), 166-193.

29. Oswald, D. L., Clark, E. M., and Kelly, C. M. (2004). Friendship Maintenance: An Analysis of Individual and Dyad Behaviors. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(3), 413-441.

30. Rosenthal, R. W. (1973). A class of games possessing pure-strategy Nash equilibria. International Journal of Game Theory, 2(1), 65-67.

31. Seguino, S., Stevens, T., and Lutz, M. (1996). Gender and cooperative behavior: economic man rides alone. Feminist Economics, 2(1), 1-21.

32. Sell, J., Griffith, W. I., and Wilson, R. K. (1993). Are Women More Cooperative Than Men in Social Dilemmas? Social Psychology Quarterly, 56(3), 211-222.

33. Sell, J., and Wilson, R. K. (1991). Levels of Information and Contributions to Public Goods. Social Forces, 70(1), 107-124.

34. Solow, J. L., and Kirkwood, N. (2002). Group identity and gender in public goods experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 48(4), 403-412.