Greater Male Variability in Cooperation: Meta-Analytic Evidence for an Evolutionary Perspective

Abstract

Do men and women differ systematically in their cooperation behaviors? Researchers have long grappled with this question, and studies have returned equivocal results. We developed an evolutionary perspective according to which men are characterized by greater intrasex variability in cooperation as a result of sex-differentiated psychological adaptations. We tested our hypothesis in two meta-analyses. The first involved the raw data of 40 samples from 23 social-dilemma studies with 8,123 participants. Findings provided strong support for our perspective. Whereas we found that the two sexes do not differ in average cooperation levels, men are much more likely to behave either selfishly or altruistically, whereas women are more likely to be moderately cooperative. We confirmed our findings in a second meta-analytic study of 28 samples from 23 studies of organizational citizenship behavior with 13,985 participants. Our results highlight the importance of taking intrasex variability into consideration when studying sex differences in cooperation and suggest important future research directions.

Keywords

cooperation sex differences decision making evolutionary psychology

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

*Abeler

Nosenzo

(2015). Self-selection into laboratory experiments: Pro-social motives versus monetary incentives. Experimental Economics, 18, 195–214. doi:10.1007/s10683-014-9397-9

Archer

Mehdikhani

(2003). Variability among males in sexually selected attributes. Review of General Psychology, 7, 219–236. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.3.219

Arden

Plomin

(2006). Sex differences in variance of intelligence across childhood. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 39–48. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.027

**Ariani

D. W.

(2013). The relationship between employee engagement, organizational citizenship behavior, and counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Business Administration, 4, 46–56. doi:10.5430/ijba.v4n2p46

Balliet

N. P.

Macfarlan

S. J.

van Vugt

(2011). Sex differences in cooperation: A meta-analytic review of social dilemmas. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 881–909. doi:10.1037/a0025354

Barrett

(2020, March 24). Hoarding during coronavirus: Not much has changed since WWII. Military Times. Retrieved from https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-army/2020/03/25/hoarding-during-coronavirus-not-much-has-changed-since-wwii/

Bateman

A. J.

(1948). Intra-sexual selection in drosophila. Heredity, 2, 349–368. doi:10.1038/hdy.1948.21

Becker

S. W.

Eagly

A. H.

(2004). The heroism of women and men. American Psychologist, 59, 163–178. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.3.163

**Belansky

E. S.

Boggiano

A. K.

(1994). Predicting helping behaviors: The role of gender and instrumental/expressive self-schemata. Sex Roles, 30, 647–661.

10.

**Bellou

Chitiris

Bellou

(2005). The impact of organizational identification and self-esteem on organizational citizenship behavior: The case of Greek public hospitals. Operational Research, 5, 305–318. doi:10.1007/bf02944315

11.

**Berry

C. M.

Kim

Wang

Thompson

Mobley

W. H.

(2013). Five-factor model personality measures and sex-based differential prediction of performance. Applied Psychology, 62, 13–43. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00493.x

12.

Bowles

Gintis

(2011). A cooperative species: Human reciprocity and its evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

13.

**Bozkurt

Bal

(2012). Investigation of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and organizational citizenship behavior: A research. International Journal of Innovations in Business, 1, 40–59.

14.

Cadsby

C. B.

Maynes

(1998). Gender and free riding in a threshold public goods game: Experimental evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 34, 603–620. doi:10.1016/S01672681(97)00010-3

15.

Carpenter

N. C.

Berry

C. M.

Houston

(2014). A meta-analytic comparison of self-reported and other-reported organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 547–574.

16.

Chiaburu

D. S.

I.-S.

Berry

C. M.

Gardner

R. G.

(2011). The five-factor model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1140–1166.

17.

**Cohen

T. R.

Panter

A. T.

Turan

Morse

Kim

(2014). Moral character in the workplace. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 943–963. doi:10.1037/a0037245

18.

Croson

Gneezy

(2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47, 448–474. doi:10.1257/jel.47.2.448

19.

Curran

P. J.

Hussong

A. M.

(2009). Integrative data analysis: The simultaneous analysis of multiple data sets. Psychological Methods, 14, 81–100.

20.

Eagly

A. H.

Crowley

(1986). Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 283–308. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.283

21.

Eagly

A. H.

Wood

(2012). Social role theory. In Van Lange

P. A. M.

Kruglanski

A. W.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 458–476). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781446249222.n49

22.

Eatough

E. M.

Chang

C.-H.

Miloslavic

S. A.

Johnson

R. E.

(2011). Relationships of role stressors with organizational citizenship behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 619–632.

23.

Eckel

C. C.

Grossman

P. J.

(2008). Differences in the economic decisions of men and women: Experimental evidence. In Plott

C. R.

Smith

V. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics results (Vol. 1, pp. 509–519). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/S1574-0722(07)00057-1

24.

**El Badawy

T. A.

Trujillo-Reyes

J. C.

Magdy

M. M.

(2017). The demographics’ effects on organizational culture, organizational citizenship behavior and job satisfaction: Evidence from Egypt and Mexico. Business and Management Research, 6, 28–41. doi:10.5430/bmr.v6n1p28

25.

*Fischbacher

Gächter

(2010). Social preferences, beliefs, and the dynamics of free riding in public good experiments. American Economic Review, 100, 541–556. doi:10.1257/aer.100.1.541

26.

*Fischbacher

Gächter

Fehr

(2001). Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Economics Letters, 71, 397–404. doi:10.1016/S0165-1765(01)00394-9

27.

*Fischbacher

Gächter

Quercia

(2012). The behavioral validity of the strategy method in public good experiments. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33, 897–913. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2012.04.002

28.

*Fischbacher

Schudy

Teyssier

(2014). Heterogeneous reactions to heterogeneity in returns from public goods. Social Choice and Welfare, 43, 195–217. doi:10.1007/s00355-013-0763-x

29.

*Fosgaard

T. R.

Hansen

L. G.

Wengström

(2014). Understanding the nature of cooperation variability. Journal of Public Economics, 120, 134–143. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.09.004

30.

*Gächter

Herrmann

(2009). Reciprocity, culture and human cooperation: Previous insights and a new cross-cultural experiment. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364, 791–806. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0275

31.

*Gächter

Herrmann

Thöni

(2004). Trust, voluntary cooperation, and socio-economic background: Survey and experimental evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 55, 505–531. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2003.11.006

32.

*Gächter

Thöni

(2005). Social learning and voluntary cooperation among like-minded people. Journal of the European Economic Association, 3, 303–314. doi:10.1162/jeea.2005.3.2-3.303

33.

**George

Carroll

Kersnick

Calderon

(1998). Gender-related patterns of helping among friends. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 685–704.

34.

**Golzari

A. A.

Montazeri

Paktinat

(2012). Relationship between work holism and organizational citizenship behavior among schools employees in Sirjan-Iran. Life Science Journal, 9, 5686–5691. doi:10.7537/marslsj090412.847

35.

**Guzman

F. A.

Espejo

(2019). Introducing changes at work: How voice behavior relates to management innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40, 73–90. doi:10.1002/job.2319

36.

**Hafidz

S. W. M.

Hoesni

S. M.

Fatimah

(2012). The relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Asian Social Science, 8, 32–37. doi:10.5539/ass.v8n9p32

37.

Hedges

L. V.

Tipton

Johnson

M. C.

(2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1, 39–65. doi:10.1002/jrsm.5

38.

*Herrmann

Thöni

(2009). Measuring conditional cooperation: A replication study in Russia. Experimental Economics, 12, 87–92. doi:10.1007/s10683-008-9197-1

39.

*Herrmann

Thöni

Gächter

(2008). Antisocial punishment across societies. Science, 319, 1362–1367. doi:10.1126/science.1153808

40.

Hyde

J. S.

(2014). Gender similarities and differences. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 373–398. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115057

41.

Johnson

Carothers

Deary

I. J.

(2008). Sex differences in variability in general intelligence: A new look at the old question. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 518–531. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00096.x

42.

*Kamei

(2012). From locality to continent: A comment on the generalization of an experimental study. Journal of Socio-Economics, 41, 207–210. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2011.12.005

43.

Kasabian

(2020, March 13). Woj: Jazz have to ‘repair relationships’ due to ‘frustration’ with Rudy Gobert. Retrieved from https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2880699-woj-jazz-have-torepair-relationships-due-to-frustration-with-rudy-gobert

44.

*Kistler

Thöni

Welzel

(2017). Survey response and observed behavior: Emancipative and secular values predict prosocial behaviors. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48, 461–489. doi:10.1177/0022022117696799

45.

**Kmec

J. A.

Gorman

E. H.

(2010). Gender and discretionary work effort: Evidence from the United States and Britain. Work and Occupations, 37, 3–36. doi:10.1177/0730888409352064

46.

*Kocher

M. G.

Cherry

T. L.

Kroll

Netzer

R. J.

Sutter

(2008). Conditional cooperation on three continents. Economics Letters, 101, 175–178. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2008.07.015

47.

Kollock

(1998). Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 183–214. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.183

48.

**Kowal

Keplinger

Mäkiö

(2019). Organizational citizenship behavior of IT professionals: Lessons from Poland and Germany. Information Technology for Development, 25, 227–249. doi:10.1080/02681102.2018.1508402

49.

Ledyard

J. O.

(1995). Public goods: A survey of experimental research. In Kagel

J. H.

Roth

A. E.

(Eds.), The handbook of experimental economics (pp. 111–194). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

50.

Lehre

A. C.

Lehre

K. P.

Laake

Danbolt

N. C.

(2009). Greater intrasex phenotype variability in males than in females is a fundamental aspect of the gender differences in humans. Developmental Psychobiology, 51, 198–206. doi:10.1002/dev.20358

51.

LePine

J. A.

Erez

Johnson

D. E.

(2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 52–65. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.52

52.

**Lovell

S. E.

Kahn

A. S.

Anton

Davidson

Dowling

Post

Mason

(1999). Does gender affect the link between organizational citizenship behavior and performance evaluation? Sex Roles, 41, 469–478. doi:10.1023/A:1018883018719

53.

*Makowsky

M. D.

Orman

W. H.

Peart

S. J.

(2014). Playing with other people’s money: Contributions to public goods by trustees. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 53, 44–55. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2014.08.003

54.

T. W.

Lam

S. S.

Feldman

D. C.

(2016). Organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior: Do males and females differ? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 93, 11–32.

55.

Poen

Gächter

(2013). Strong gender differences in strategic cooperation. Unpublished manuscript, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Nottingham.

56.

Pomiankowski

Møller

A. P.

(1995). A resolution of the lek paradox. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 260, 21–29. doi:10.1098/rspb.1995.0054

57.

**Raj

Tiwari

G. K.

Rai

P. K.

(2019). Gender and nature of school organizations predict interdependent happiness of teachers. IMPACT: International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Literature, 7, 363–377.

58.

Rand

D. G.

(2016). Cooperation, fast and slow: Meta-analytic evidence for a theory of social heuristics and self-interested deliberation. Psychological Science, 27, 1192–1206. doi:10.1177/0956797616654455

59.

Raudenbush

S. W.

(2009). Analyzing effect sizes: Random-effects models. In Cooper

Hedges

L. V.

Valentine

J. C.

(Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (pp. 295–315). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

60.

**Roche

Haar

J. M.

(2013). A metamodel approach towards self-determination theory: A study of New Zealand managers’ organisational citizenship behaviours. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 3397–3417. doi:10.1080/09585192.2013.770779

61.

**Sackett

P. R.

Berry

C. M.

Wiemann

S. A.

Laczo

R. M.

(2006). Citizenship and counterproductive work behavior: Clarifying relationships between the two domains. Human Performance, 19, 441–464. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1904_7

62.

**Singh

A. K.

Singh

A. P.

(2010). Role of stress and organizational support in predicting organizational citizenship. IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9, 7–25.

63.

**Singh

S. R.

Padmanabhan

(2017). A study of organizational citizenship behaviour of secondary school teachers. Sansmaran, 7, 3–11.

64.

**Tang

T. L.-P.

Singer

M. G.

Roberts

(2000). Employees’ perceived organizational instrumentality: An examination of the gender differences. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15, 378–406. doi:10.1108/02683940010337112

65.

*Thöni

Tyran

J.-R.

Wengström

(2012). Microfoundations of social capital. Journal of Public Economics, 96, 635–643. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2012.04.003

66.

Thöni

Volk

(2018). Conditional cooperation: Review and refinement. Economics Letters, 171, 37–40. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2018.06.022

67.

Trivers

R. L.

(1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell

(Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136–179). Chicago, IL: Aldine.

68.

**Valentine

Godkin

Page

Rittenburg

(2009). Gender and ethics: Ethical judgments, ethical intentions, and altruism among healthcare professionals. Gender in Management, 24, 112–130. doi:10.1108/17542410910938808

69.

**Van Houwelingen

Van Dijke

(2020). An abstract mind is trusted more: Cognitive abstraction facilitates perceived trustworthiness. Unpublished manuscript, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Amsterdam.

70.

*van Miltenburg

Buskens

Barrera

Raub

(2014). Implementing punishment and reward in the public goods game: The effect of individual and collective decision rules. International Journal of the Commons, 8, 47–78.

71.

*Volk

Thöni

Ruigrok

(2012). Temporal stability and psychological foundations of cooperation preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 81, 664–676. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2011.10.006

72.

*Weber

T. O.

Weisel

Gächter

(2018). Dispositional free riders do not free ride on punishment. Nature Communications, 9, Article 2390. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-04775-8

73.

Wilcockson

Crean

Day

(1995). Heritability of a sexually selected character expressed in both sexes. Nature, 374, 158–159.

74.

**Wilkinson

(2005). Gender stereotypes of citizenship performance and their influence on organizational re-wards. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

1.23 MB