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.
*AbelerJ.NosenzoD. (2015). Self-selection into laboratory experiments: Pro-social motives versus monetary incentives. Experimental Economics, 18, 195–214. doi:10.1007/s10683-014-9397-9
2.
ArcherJ.MehdikhaniM. (2003). Variability among males in sexually selected attributes. Review of General Psychology, 7, 219–236. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.3.219
3.
ArdenR.PlominR. (2006). Sex differences in variance of intelligence across childhood. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 39–48. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.027
4.
**ArianiD. 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
5.
BallietD.LiN. P.MacfarlanS. J.van VugtM. (2011). Sex differences in cooperation: A meta-analytic review of social dilemmas. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 881–909. doi:10.1037/a0025354
BatemanA. J. (1948). Intra-sexual selection in drosophila. Heredity, 2, 349–368. doi:10.1038/hdy.1948.21
8.
BeckerS. W.EaglyA. H. (2004). The heroism of women and men. American Psychologist, 59, 163–178. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.3.163
9.
**BelanskyE. S.BoggianoA. K. (1994). Predicting helping behaviors: The role of gender and instrumental/expressive self-schemata. Sex Roles, 30, 647–661.
10.
**BellouV.ChitirisL.BellouA. (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.
**BerryC. M.KimA.WangY.ThompsonR.MobleyW. 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.
BowlesS.GintisH. (2011). A cooperative species: Human reciprocity and its evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13.
**BozkurtS.BalY. (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.
CadsbyC. B.MaynesE. (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.
CarpenterN. C.BerryC. M.HoustonL. (2014). A meta-analytic comparison of self-reported and other-reported organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 547–574.
16.
ChiaburuD. S.OhI.-S.BerryC. M.LiN.GardnerR. G. (2011). The five-factor model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1140–1166.
17.
**CohenT. R.PanterA. T.TuranN.MorseL.KimY. (2014). Moral character in the workplace. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 943–963. doi:10.1037/a0037245
18.
CrosonR.GneezyU. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47, 448–474. doi:10.1257/jel.47.2.448
19.
CurranP. J.HussongA. M. (2009). Integrative data analysis: The simultaneous analysis of multiple data sets. Psychological Methods, 14, 81–100.
20.
EaglyA. H.CrowleyM. (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.
EaglyA. H.WoodW. (2012). Social role theory. In Van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 458–476). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781446249222.n49
22.
EatoughE. M.ChangC.-H.MiloslavicS. A.JohnsonR. E. (2011). Relationships of role stressors with organizational citizenship behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 619–632.
23.
EckelC. C.GrossmanP. J. (2008). Differences in the economic decisions of men and women: Experimental evidence. In PlottC. R.SmithV. 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 BadawyT. A.Trujillo-ReyesJ. C.MagdyM. 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.
*FischbacherU.GächterS. (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.
*FischbacherU.GächterS.FehrE. (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.
*FischbacherU.GächterS.QuerciaS. (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.
*FischbacherU.SchudyS.TeyssierS. (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.
*FosgaardT. R.HansenL. G.WengströmE. (2014). Understanding the nature of cooperation variability. Journal of Public Economics, 120, 134–143. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.09.004
30.
*GächterS.HerrmannB. (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.
*GächterS.HerrmannB.ThöniC. (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.
*GächterS.ThöniC. (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.
**GeorgeD.CarrollP.KersnickR.CalderonK. (1998). Gender-related patterns of helping among friends. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 685–704.
34.
**GolzariA. A.MontazeriM.PaktinatE. (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.
**GuzmanF. A.EspejoA. (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.
**HafidzS. W. M.HoesniS. M.FatimahO. (2012). The relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Asian Social Science, 8, 32–37. doi:10.5539/ass.v8n9p32
37.
HedgesL. V.TiptonE.JohnsonM. 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.
*HerrmannB.ThöniC. (2009). Measuring conditional cooperation: A replication study in Russia. Experimental Economics, 12, 87–92. doi:10.1007/s10683-008-9197-1
39.
*HerrmannB.ThöniC.GächterS. (2008). Antisocial punishment across societies. Science, 319, 1362–1367. doi:10.1126/science.1153808
40.
HydeJ. S. (2014). Gender similarities and differences. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 373–398. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115057
41.
JohnsonW.CarothersA.DearyI. 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.
*KameiK. (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
*KistlerD.ThöniC.WelzelC. (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.
**KmecJ. A.GormanE. 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.
*KocherM. G.CherryT. L.KrollS.NetzerR. J.SutterM. (2008). Conditional cooperation on three continents. Economics Letters, 101, 175–178. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2008.07.015
47.
KollockP. (1998). Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 183–214. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.183
48.
**KowalJ.KeplingerA.MäkiöJ. (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.
LedyardJ. O. (1995). Public goods: A survey of experimental research. In KagelJ. H.RothA. E. (Eds.), The handbook of experimental economics (pp. 111–194). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
50.
LehreA. C.LehreK. P.LaakeP.DanboltN. 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.
LePineJ. A.ErezA.JohnsonD. 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.
**LovellS. E.KahnA. S.AntonJ.DavidsonA.DowlingE.PostD.MasonC. (1999). Does gender affect the link between organizational citizenship behavior and performance evaluation?Sex Roles, 41, 469–478. doi:10.1023/A:1018883018719
53.
*MakowskyM. D.OrmanW. H.PeartS. 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.
NgT. W.LamS. S.FeldmanD. C. (2016). Organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior: Do males and females differ?Journal of Vocational Behavior, 93, 11–32.
55.
PoenE.GächterS. (2013). Strong gender differences in strategic cooperation. Unpublished manuscript, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Nottingham.
56.
PomiankowskiA.MøllerA. 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.
**RajR.TiwariG. K.RaiP. 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.
RandD. 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.
RaudenbushS. W. (2009). Analyzing effect sizes: Random-effects models. In CooperH.HedgesL. V.ValentineJ. C. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (pp. 295–315). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
60.
**RocheM.HaarJ. 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.
**SackettP. R.BerryC. M.WiemannS. A.LaczoR. M. (2006). Citizenship and counterproductive work behavior: Clarifying relationships between the two domains. Human Performance, 19, 441–464. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1904_7
62.
**SinghA. K.SinghA. P. (2010). Role of stress and organizational support in predicting organizational citizenship. IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9, 7–25.
63.
**SinghS. R.PadmanabhanV. (2017). A study of organizational citizenship behaviour of secondary school teachers. Sansmaran, 7, 3–11.
64.
**TangT. L.-P.SingerM. G.RobertsS. (2000). Employees’ perceived organizational instrumentality: An examination of the gender differences. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15, 378–406. doi:10.1108/02683940010337112
65.
*ThöniC.TyranJ.-R.WengströmE. (2012). Microfoundations of social capital. Journal of Public Economics, 96, 635–643. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2012.04.003
TriversR. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In CampbellB. (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136–179). Chicago, IL: Aldine.
68.
**ValentineS.GodkinL.PageK.RittenburgT. (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 HouwelingenG.Van DijkeM. (2020). An abstract mind is trusted more: Cognitive abstraction facilitates perceived trustworthiness. Unpublished manuscript, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Amsterdam.
70.
*van MiltenburgN.BuskensV.BarreraD.RaubW. (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.
*VolkS.ThöniC.RuigrokW. (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.
*WeberT. O.WeiselO.GächterS. (2018). Dispositional free riders do not free ride on punishment. Nature Communications, 9, Article 2390. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-04775-8
73.
WilcocksonR.CreanC.DayT. (1995). Heritability of a sexually selected character expressed in both sexes. Nature, 374, 158–159.
74.
**WilkinsonL. (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.
