Studiensammlung 1: Sexuelle Konkurrenz, Kooperation, Geschlechterunterschiede etc

Hier ein paar Studien:


Men increase contributions to a public good when under sexual competition

Why humans cooperate in large groups and with non-kin remains a puzzle for researchers across the natural and social sciences. Investigating whether cooperation is sexually selected could contribute to an understanding of the evolution of human cooperation. Competition for access to mates could indeed select for cooperation. Using controlled laboratory experiments, we analyse whether and how the sex composition of a social environment, testosterone level, and relationship status affect contributions to a public good. The results show that variation in sex composition alters the amount of money that single men (but not men in a couple or women) contribute to a public good. Notably, in line with the competitive helping hypothesis, awareness of the presence of a woman leads to larger contributions by single men, most likely by triggering their competitiveness to be the most cooperative man in the group. However, we find no link between basal testosterone level and cooperativeness. We argue that men, notably single men, adopt cooperative behaviours as a signalling strategy in the context of mate choice and hence that cooperation is partly sexually selected. Our findings highlight the need to consider sexual selection as an additional mechanism for cooperation.


Attractiveness and sexual behavior: Does attractiveness enhance mating success?

If attractiveness is an important cue for mate choice, as proposed by evolutionary psychologists, then attractive individuals should have greater mating success than their peers. We tested this hypothesis in a large sample of adults. Facial attractiveness correlated with the number of short-term, but not long-term, sexual partners, for males, and with the number of long-term, but not short-term, sexual partners and age of first sex, for females. Body attractiveness also correlated significantly with the number of short-term, but not long-term, sexual partners, for males, and attractive males became sexually active earlier than their peers. Body attractiveness did not correlate with any sexual behavior variable for females. To determine which aspects of attractiveness were important, we examined associations between sexual behaviors and three components of attractiveness: sexual dimorphism, averageness, and symmetry. Sexual dimorphism showed the clearest associations with sexual behaviors. Masculine males (bodies, similar trend for faces) had more short-term sexual partners, and feminine females (faces) had more long-term sexual partners than their peers. Feminine females (faces) also became sexually active earlier than their peers. Average males (faces and bodies) had more short-term sexual partners and more extra-pair copulations (EPC) than their peers. Symmetric women (faces) became sexually active earlier than their peers. Given that male reproductive success depends more on short-term mating opportunities than does female reproductive success, these findings suggest that individuals of high phenotypic quality have higher mating success than their lower quality counterparts.


Sex differences in neural and behavioral signatures of cooperation revealed by fNIRS hyperscanning

Researchers from multiple fields have sought to understand how sex moderates human social behavior. While over 50 years of research has revealed differences in cooperation behavior of males and females, the underlying neural correlates of these sex differences have not been explained. A missing and fundamental element of this puzzle is an understanding of how the sex composition of an interacting dyad influences the brain and behavior during cooperation. Using fNIRS-based hyperscanning in 111 same- and mixed-sex dyads, we identified significant behavioral and neural sex-related differences in association with a computer-based cooperation task. Dyads containing at least one male demonstrated significantly higher behavioral performance than female/female dyads. Individual males and females showed significant activation in the right frontopolar and right inferior prefrontal cortices, although this activation was greater in females compared to males. Female/female dyad’s exhibited significant inter-brain coherence within the right temporal cortex, while significant coherence in male/male dyads occurred in the right inferior prefrontal cortex. Significant coherence was not observed in mixed-sex dyads. Finally, for same-sex dyads only, task-related inter-brain coherence was positively correlated with cooperation task performance. Our results highlight multiple important and previously undetected influences of sex on concurrent neural and behavioral signatures of cooperation.


Camp stability predicts patterns of hunter–gatherer cooperation

Humans regularly cooperate with non-kin, which has been theorized to require reciprocity between repeatedly interacting and trusting individuals. However, the role of repeated interactions has not previously been demonstrated in explaining real-world patterns of hunter–gatherer cooperation. Here we explore cooperation among the Agta, a population of Filipino hunter–gatherers, using data from both actual resource transfers and two experimental games across multiple camps. Patterns of cooperation vary greatly between camps and depend on socio-ecological context. Stable camps (with fewer changes in membership over time) were associated with greater reciprocal sharing, indicating that an increased likelihood of future interactions facilitates reciprocity. This is the first study reporting an association between reciprocal cooperation and hunter–gatherer band stability. Under conditions of low camp stability individuals still acquire resources from others, but do so via demand sharing (taking from others), rather than based on reciprocal considerations. Hunter–gatherer cooperation may either be characterized as reciprocity or demand sharing depending on socio-ecological conditions.


Does Grief give an evolutionary advantage?

Grief can be an awful thing. The loss of someone or something can dominate our lives for months, if not years, after the event. Surely – from an evolutionary perspective – such behaviour can’t be beneficial. All the “wasted” time, effort and resources is hardly likely to improve our survival odds; and that’s not even counting the physical and mental harm that can stem from it. It must just be an unfortunate side effect of our emotional investment in people, pets and things (an emotional investment which is likely beneficial). However, a team of psychologists from Florida disagrees1. They’ve published research revealing that grief may have given our species an evolutionary advantage after all.

Their idea stems from the evolutionary phenomena of “costly signalling”. This is when an animal deliberately screws itself over; showing how great it must be to survive despite that disadvantage. The classic example of this is male peacocks, whose huge tails can hinder their movement and flight. If they can survive despite this (in fact, flourish despite this. The energy needed to sustain that tail isn’t insignificant) surely they have great genes and all the peahens should totally mate with them1.

Chimpanzee grief? An adult stands over a recently deceased child
Nature is full of examples of animals that have evolved a disadvantage to “show off”; increasing their evolutionary success in the long run. In this new study, the psychologists argue that grief may be a similar sort of emotional costly signal. If someone gets really upset when a relationship ends then clearly they invest a lot in their relationships; making them an excellent choice for a mate. Effectively, grief evolved as a sort of emotional peacocks tail; showing off just how much we care1.

Which is a nice idea, but is it right? If it was, one might expect people to have a higher opinion of those who exhibited more grief (as their peacock tail was more impressive). So the psychologists conducted a series of experiments to test this prediction; getting participants to read stories about people who had lost loved ones1.

They varied the severity of grief they expressed to see if it resulted in variation of how much people liked them. This ranged from simply describing “John’s wife died” to “John’s wife died and he grieved for 3 years” (with variation in between). They also varied it between third and first person (e.g. “my wife died”) to see if that had an effect. Finally, they got the participants to pick one of these people to be a partner in a trust game; seeing if the varying levels of grief influenced their decision1.

In every case the person who grieved more was viewed as a better person. They were ranked as more trustworthy, a more desirable friend, a nicer person, more loyal and having a greater capacity for forming emotional bonds. In short, grief did seem to act as a signal that the griever forms stronger relationships; making them a more desirable person to form said relationships with1.


On Cuteness: Unlocking the Parental Brain and Beyond

Cuteness in offspring is a potent protective mechanism that ensures survival for otherwise completely dependent infants. Previous research has linked cuteness to early ethological ideas of a ‘Kindchenschema’ (infant schema) where infant facial features serve as ‘innate releasing mechanisms’ for instinctual caregiving behaviours. We propose extending the concept of cuteness beyond visual features to include positive infant sounds and smells. Evidence from behavioural and neuroimaging studies links this extended concept of cuteness to simple ‘instinctual’ behaviours and to caregiving, protection, and complex emotions. We review how cuteness supports key parental capacities by igniting fast privileged neural activity followed by slower processing in large brain networks also involved in play, empathy, and perhaps even higher-order moral emotions.

The parent–infant relation is fundamental to infant survival and development.

Cuteness has emerged as an important factor for attracting caregiver attention and affection.

Cuteness is not limited to visual infant features, but is also found in positive sounds and smells.

Neuroimaging has started to identify how survival-related infant-positive and negative stimuli elicit core affective brain activity through fast attentional biasing and slow appraisal processes.

Beyond caregiving, cuteness has a key role in facilitating social relations, pleasure, and well-being, as well as increasing empathy and compassion.

Der „Schwanzvergleich“ unter Männern und intrasexuelle Konkurrenz

Zu einer sehr kontrovers geführten Diskussion über das Körper-Geist-Problem brachte Maren einen altbekannten Einwurf:

Herrlisch. Ich hab keine Ahnung von Philosophie, aber mich erheitern die Penisvergleiche hier grade sehr.

Unter einem Penisvergleich oder Schwanzvergleich versteht man letztendlich, dass eine Auseinandersetzung unter Männern nicht um die Sache selbst geführt wird, sondern Teil einer reinen intrasexuellen Konkurrenz ist. Die Penislänge wird dabei sinnbildlich als Wettkampf unter Männern verstanden, bei dem derjenige mit dem längeren Penis gewinnt, also der bessere Mann ist.

Aus Sicht eines Biologen ist diese Metapher interessant, denn aus dieser Sicht ist eine Auseinandersetzung in der Sache natürlich ein Produkt intrasexueller Konkurrenz. Beide sind sehr eng miteinander verbunden. Es geht um Wettbewerb unter Männern, der gleichzeitig auch ein Ergebnis sexueller Selektion von Frauen auf Männer, die möglichst hoch in der Hierarchie stehen.

Wer solche Auseinandersetzungen als „typisch männlich“ der muss sich auch Fragen, wie sie von sonstigen Konkurrenzverhalten abzugrenzen sind und ob man in dieser Hinsicht nicht auch generell von einer höheren Wettbewerbsbereitschaft von Männern ausgehen müsste.

Man könnte zwar einwenden, dass Männer eben einen solchen Wettbwerb persönlicher werden lassen und Frauen hingegen im „guten Wettbewerb“ genauso ehrgeizig sind. Allerdings ist eben auch ein persönlich motivierter Wettbewerb anspornend und dessen entstehen eher geeignet sich in dieser Hinsicht anzustrengen. Zudem scheint mir dieses Bild auch mit einer durch sonstige Daten nicht gedeckten übermäßig positiven Einschätzung von Frauen verbunden zu sein.

So gesehen ist diese Tendenz von Männern zum „Schwanzvergleich“ vielleicht einer der Gründe, warum eine große Zahl von Leistungen erbracht worden sind, wahrscheinlich auch einiges an Kriegen oder anderen Auseinandersetzungen. Es ist vielleicht auch der Grund, warum Männer eher in Spitzenpositionen und anderen Positionen im direkten Wettbewerb vorzufinden sind.


„Gender Ambitionen Gap“ statt „Gender Pay Gap“

In dem Artikel „When It Comes To Women There’s No Equality Gap, There’s An Ambition Gap“ wird die Erwartungshaltung bezüglich der Karriere auf interessante Weise umgedeht:

Aus dem Lohnunterschied ergibt sich nicht, dass Frauen beim Lohn diskriminiert werde, sondern dass sie nicht ambitioniert genug sind, um einen höheren Lohn zu erzielne

Aus dem Artikel:

When we talk about women and equality, the emphasis is always placed on when companies are going to open their doors to women, or when there will no longer be a glass ceiling. The thing is, in 2014, we don’t need to wait around for a red carpet to be rolled out for us. No person who is smart enough to run a company really thinks that they shouldn’t hire a woman because she isn’t as smart or capable. The number one reason there aren’t more women running countries and companies is because there aren’t more women who want to run countries and companies.

Also ein Betonen der Eigenständigkeit der Frau und ein Verweis darauf, dass die Gläserne Decke vielleicht gar nicht so solide ist, sondern die Frauen nur einfach nicht den steilen Berg hinaufkraxeln wollen.

Es ist insoweit die „Autonomiekeule„: Frauen entscheiden sich für bestimmte Lebensgestaltungen, weil sie so leben wollen.

There is an achievement gap between men and women. I think this is in large part to our cultural expectations of women. There are plenty of men who run companies and countries that have a wife and kids. It doesn’t stop there for these people. Men who are married are actually more capable of achieving more because they have a wife who takes care of the household minutiae, allowing them to spend more time focusing on work. When women get married, they become less capable of achieving more, in general, because they put themselves into this role of helper.

Hier geht es dann allerdings doch wieder in die Richtung der Geschlechterrolle. Frauen unterliegen gewissen kulturellen Erwartungen und die lassen sie eher zum Helder als zum Macher werden. Die klassische Arbeitsteilung führt zu einer gewissen Aufgabenverteilung, die den Mann für die Arbeit frei(er) stellt und die Frau für die Familie. Dementsprechend ergeben sich auch die Karrieremöglichkeiten.

As far as we have come as women, we still don’t have the ambition that men have. We want to be helpers rather than doers. We are content to say “my husband’s success is my success, because he couldn’t do it without me caring for our children, doing his laundry, making his meals.”

We think we are selfish when we do something that isn’t for other people, men call that living.

Auch hier wieder die Vorstellung, dass es egoistisch sein muss, Karriere zu machen, und selbstlos, wenn man „der Helfer“ ist. Das kann man natürlich auch genau andersrum sehen: Der eine geht zur Erwerbsarbeit und sichert damit selbstlos die Versorgung der Familie und erlaubt dem anderen egoistisch Zeit mit der Familie und den Kindern zu verbringen: Er ist insofern ebenfalls der Helfer dieses Lebensstils.

Es ist eh erstaunlich, dass Karriere so unkritisch als etwas gesehen wird, was einfach nur ein Gewinn ist: Es ist natürlich auch Konkurrenz, harte Arbeit, Verantwortung und Stress. Es kommt eben darauf an, wie man die Arbeit sieht und aus welchem Blickwinkel man es sieht. Hier darf man ruhig einmal darauf verweisen, dass viele Frauen auch kein Leben wollen, indem sie die Kinder kaum sehen, weil diese schon schlafen, wenn sie nach Hause kommen. Genau das kann nämlich Karriere auch bedeuten.

Zudem ist es für die Frau eben auch leichter, sich über den Status des Mannes zu definieren, weil es zu sexuellen Selektionskriterien passt: Sich einen guten Versorger geangelt zu haben bedeutet sich gegen die weibliche Konkurrenz durchgesetzt zu haben und ist insofern auch ein „ehrliches Zeichen“ für eigene Qualitäten. Ein Mann mit einer hochstehenden Frau hingegen hat solche  Selektionskriterien eher gegen sich: Seine Frau brauch ihn nicht als Versorger, er hat einen geringeren Status, die üblichen Attraktivitätsmerkmale greifen nicht (natürlich kann man sozialen Status auch anders ausgleichen, aber es bleibt eben erst einmal eine ungewöhnliche Wahl)

If we really want to close the equality gap, we need to think about how we can close the ambition gap: encourage women to dream big, and not to settle for a helper role.

Guter Ansatz. Er hat aber einige Hindernisse gegen sich. Eben auch, weil es vielen Frauen wesentlich schwerer fällt sich für eine Verschiebung der Work-Life-Balance sehr stark auf die Seite von „Work“ zu entscheiden.

Wolf of Wall Street: Intrasexuelle Konkurrenz und intersexuelle Selektion als Anreiz

(im Prinzip motiviert er seine Mitarbeiter damit, dass sie Status über Geld aufbauen können und dann alle Frauen mit ihnen schlafen wollen, wenn man es unter dem Gesichtspunkt intrasexueller Konkurrenz unter Männer und intersexueller Selektion sieht, macht er ihnen deutlich, dass sie sich dann ein höherwertiges Signalling mit Statusobjekten leisten können und sie im Wettkampf aufgrund des Geldes weit oben stehen werden)

Das patriachale Paradigma

Auf der Seite „Rette sich wer kann“ wird das patriarchale Paradigma beschrieben:

Zu dem, was dort unter Paradigma verstanden wird:

Es ist die Kenntnis, Erkenntnis- und Wissens”glocke” in der wir uns als Gruppe befinden, ein Netzwerk der Umgangsformen.

Salopp gesagt: Innerhalb eines Paradigmas werden dessen Elemente als normal und selbstverständlich empfunden.

Tradiert wird ein Paradigma – vereinfacht ausgedrückt – über Sprach-Konversationen (Verbalisierung + Gestik, Mimik), die mit dem Gefühlsbereich gekoppelt sind. Kleine Kinder erlernen die Gegebenheiten ihres Paradigmas, tragen sie gleichzeitig weiter und manifestieren sie damit. Ein Paradigma ist ein Selbstläufer, solange es funktioniert.

Also ein grundsätzliche Denkweise, eine Glaubensrichtung, der man folgt und innerhalb derer man lebt.

Zum „patriarchalen Paradigma:

Beschreibung des patriarchalen Paradigmas:

Alle Aspekte des Lebens in den Industrieländern sind geprägt durch das „patriarchale Netzwerk der Umgangsformen“ – Patriarchat genannt.

Dieses Netzwerk patriarchaler Konversationen offenbart sich in einem Lebensstil wo

  • Kampf,
  • Wettbewerb,
  • Hierarchie,
  • Gewalt und Zwang,
  • Macht,
  • Wachstum,
  • Fortschritt,
  • Kontrolle natürlicher Ressourcen,
  • Kontrolle und Beherrschung anderer durch die Inbesitznahme von Wahrheit,

charakteristisch sind.

Wettbewerb und Kampf Wollen wir beispielsweise etwas gegen soziale Ungerechtigkeit unternehmen, sprechen wir vom ‚Kampf gegen Armut und Ausbeutung’

Finde ich eine interessante Auflistung. Sie ist relativ willkürlich und so gesehen auch nicht positiv in dem, was dort über Frauen ausgesagt wird: Sie haben anscheinend nichts mit Wettbewerb, Macht, Wachstum und Fortschritt zu tun. Diese Eigenschaften werden in den Bereich des männlichen verlegt. Es ist letztendlich eine recht essentialistische Betrachtung der Geschlechter, die sich anscheinend nicht vorstellen kann, dass auch Frauen Fortschritt wollen und an einem Wachstum interessiert sind, auch an Macht interessiert sind und im Wettbewerb bestehen wollen.

Es zeigt auch, dass die biologischen Theorien insoweit flexibler sind und lediglich davon ausgehen, dass mehr Männer als Frauen bestimmte Eigenschaften, darunter auch die obenaufgelisteten haben, während andere Eigenschaften eher  bei Frauen als bei Männern aufzufinden sind, das aber eben nicht absolut.

Letztendlich werden hier viele Aspekte intrasexueller Konkurrenz angesprochen, die unter Männern im Schnitt stärker ausgeprägt sind. Sie werden eben nur rein sozial begründet und unter einem reinen Machtanspruch und in einem negativen Kontext dargestellt.

Das böse Männliche, verkörpert in bestimmten als negativ angenommenen Eigenschaften

„Der wesentliche Unterschied zwischen Männern und Frauen“

Dieses Bild fand ich mittels des folgenden Tweet von Roosh:

Was sagt ihr dazu:

Unterschied Männer Frauen

Unterschied Männer Frauen

Es wäre eine – essentialistisch überspitzte – Betonung des Umgangs mit Wettbewerb. Männer würden sich demnach eher diesem Stellen und ihn als Motivation sehen, Frauen eher auf Gleichbehandlung setzen und versuchen die Maßstäbe zu ändern, also versuchen, die Konkurrenz abzubauen.

Es wäre ja durchaus ein Trend, der sich im Feminismus niedergeschlagen hat, dessen Botschaft ja häufig gerade ein Abbau der Privilegien, eine Verringerung des Wettbewerbes, ein „Jeder kann so sein, wie er will, man darf das nicht bewerten“ ist. Fatshaming und Frauenquote, Privilegientheorien und weibliche Schutzräume ließen sich hier durchaus gut einbauen.

Auswirkungen von Risikobereitschaft, sozialen Präferenzen und Wettbewerb auf die weibliche Berufswahl

Eine Studie zu der Frage wie sich bestimmte Präferenzen auf die Berufswahl auswirken:

In the current survey we study preference differences between men and women, focusing on three factors that are relevant in the labor market: Risk taking, social preferences and reaction to competition.  If women prefer jobs that are less risky, more socially virtuous and less competitive, then this could explain part of the gender differences in the labor market.

Das ist ja eine bereits häufiger besprochene These, die eben nicht auf reine für den Beruf erforderliche Eigenschaften, sondern eher auf die Präferenzen abstellt.

Der erste Bereich ist die Bereitschaft ein Risiko einzugehen:

The findings in this section show clear evidence that men are more risk-taking than women in most tasks and most populations. Some important caveats are, however, needed. Perhaps the most important one for labor markets is that women who chose (or who were trained) in jobs such as financial advisors, are not less risk-taking than their men colleagues. But why do we see so many more men in these positions than women? One answer might be the riskiness of the compensation in these positions. But there are 18 other possibilities as well

Der zweite Bereich sind soziale Komponenten:

First, we identify experiments that have demonstrated gender differences and look for evidence that women 37 are more responsive than men to the conditions of the experiment. We find such evidence in a wide variety of settings.

In dictator games, we find that women’s decisions vary with the size of the pie more than do men’s (Andreoni and Vesterlund), and that women’s decisions are sensitive to the gender (and home state) of their counterpart while men’s are not (Ben-Ner, Kong and Putterman).

In trust decisions we find that the amounts women send varies more than the amounts men send with the identification (and gender) of their counterpart (Buchan, Croson and Solnick), and with the existence of a picture of their counterpart (Eckel and Wilson). Similarly, female trust is sensitive to the size of the pie, the social distance in the experiment and the ability of the second player to respond, while male trust is not sensitive to any of these factors (Cox and Deck). In reciprocal decisions, we again find that women are more sensitive to conditions of the experiment. Men are less likely to punish (reward) a partner who had previously been unfair (fair) than women are (Eckel and Grossman). Women are influenced more strongly than men by the first-mover’s decision in sequential dictator games as well (Ben-Ner, Putterman, Kong and Magan). And women were more reciprocal in trust games than men (Croson and Buchan; Buchan, Croson and Solnick; Chaudhuri and Gangadharan; Snijders and Keren; Schwieren and Sutter)

In social dilemma settings women’s decisions are more sensitive to the ability to communicate than are men’s (Stockard, van de Kragt and Dodge). In the prisoner’s dilemma setting, female behavior varied more than males as the gender composition of their group changed (Ortmann and Tichy).

Second, we look between studies and compare the differences in male and female behavior. Between-study comparisons of levels is always tricky, thus we are more careful in our interpretations here. If our explanation is correct, we will see more variability in female behavior across related studies than in male behavior. We find between-study evidence for our explanation in three different settings. In responder behavior in ultimatum games, we compare the Eckel-Grossman and Solnick papers and find that rejection rates by women differ by 18.6% while rejection rates by men differ by only 8.7%. In dictator giving we compare the Eckel-Grossman and Bolton-Katok papers and find that male giving differed by only $0.62 while female giving differed by $1.46 between the two studies. Finally, in VCM games, we find that gender differences are caused by female contributions changing by 9.9 percentage-points on average, while male contributions change by only 4.6 percentage-points on average.

We believe, as suggested by Gilligan (1982), that men’s decisions are less context-specific than women’s. Participants of both genders are likely maximizing an underlying utility function, but the function that men use is less sensitive to the conditions of the experiment, information about the other party, and (even) the other party’s actions, than the function that women use. This causes what appear to be inconsistent results in our experimental studies; sometimes men appear more altruistic than women and other times, women appear more altruistic than men. But primarily what we see is women’s behavior is more context-dependent than that of men.

These results (and our organizing explanation of them) have important implications for the labor market. If, as the evidence suggests, women are more other-regarding than men they may be more likely to choose jobs that create benefits for others (e.g. in “helping” 39 professions) which are traditionally lower-paid. This may contribute to the wage gap. Similarly our organizing explanation suggests that women’s social preferences are more sensitive to subtle cues than are men’s. This can lead women to choose professions which they think are socially appropriate for women, based on the cues they observe about the workforce (for example, what proportion of women are in this given profession). In contrast, men’s choice of profession would be less sensitive to these cues.

Also stärkere Auswirkungen von sozialen Gegebenheiten bei Frauen. Diese würden sich eher Jobs suchen, in denen sie anderen helfen und dabei anscheinend auch eher darauf achten, was andere Frauen machen.

Zuletzt geht es dann um den Wettbewerb:

First, a higher fraction of men choose competitive environments than women. Second, men and women were more likely to choose competitive environments when they have an advantage in performing the task than when they do not. Women who choose competitive environments perform just as well as men in those settings. Under this more sophisticated view, the source of the observed gender differences in reaction to competition is driven by the fraction of competitive types, which is higher among men than among women.

Meiner Meinung nach passt das sehr gut zu den biologischen Theorien: Testosteron steht in einer gewissen Verbindung mit der Wettbewerbsbereitschaft. Da mehr Männer als Frauen die entsprechende Schwelle in dem Bereich überschreiten sind Männer auch häufiger in Wettbewerbssituationen zu finden. Die Frauen, die aufgrund ihrer biologischen Grundlagen allerdings ebenfalls damit gut zurechtkommen, schlagen sich genau so gut.

Dann geht es innerhalb des Wettbewerbs um die Präferenzen beim Verhandeln:

In a direct measure of attitudes rather than behavior, Babcock, Gelfand, Small, and Stayn (2003) asked several hundred people about their negotiating experience. They found that men place themselves in negotiation situation more often than women, and regard more of their interactions as potential negotiations. This difference is robust to age. Why do we see this difference in attitudes and behavior? We believe that it reflects differences in men and women’s attitudes toward competitive situations. As in the research above, when people can choose men are more likely to choose competitive interactions (like negotiation) than women are. This type of sorting can have strong implications for labor market outcomes (e.g., Lazear, 2000). Differences between career choices and promotion speeds can be caused by the desire to avoid competitive situations. High status positions are usually highly competitive. If men are more eager to participate in competitive environments than are women, this could explain a large part of the gender gap.

Dass würde dann dazu führen, dass die Frauenquote nur den Frauen hilft, die eh Freude an diesem Wettbewerb haben.

Aus der abschließenden Besprechung:

In general, this literature has documented fundamental preference differences between the two genders (with exceptions noted in the text). These differences are consistent with preferencebased explanations for the gender gap in wages.

For example, most lab and field studies indicate that women are more risk-averse than men (section 2). This risk-aversion can lead to the attraction of women to jobs with lower mean, lower-variance salaries. This preference-based explanation is consistent with some gender-gap evidence without resorting to discrimination arguments.

A number of studies also indicate that women’s social preferences are more sensitive to subtle cues than are men’s (section 3). This can lead women to choose professions which they think are socially appropriate for women, based on the cues they observe about the workforce (for example, what proportion of women are in this given profession).

Finally, a third stream of literature suggests that women’s preferences for competitive situations are lower than men’s. This can lead women to choose professions with less competition (and again to end up receiving lower wages on average). It can also lead to women earning less or advancing more slowly within a given profession.

Of course, the fact that the gender gap can be explained by preference differences does not mean that discrimination does not occur, nor can we conclude that social policy affecting this domain would not be welcome or value-creating

Hier müsste man also, damit Frauen bereit sind in entsprechenden Jobs zu arbeiten und für diese zu arbeiten, gerade diese Eigenschaften fördern. Und natürlich auch prüfen, inwieweit sie auf Biologie beruhen.

Dazu ist auch noch etwas in der Studie:

One important and interesting question about these differences is whether they are ingrained or taught. By taking a step back and asking what causes the gender difference we can also connect some of the different elements discussed in this paper. For example, a large body of literature in evolutionary biology and socio-biology documents differences in competitiveness between males and females, in many species. 10 This literature argues that the differences in competitiveness arise because, due to differences in the cost of reproduction, competitive males will attempt to mate at every opportunity. Females, on the other hand, are inherently choosy, reserving their favors for the strongest suitor. Connecting competitive behavior with risk taking, Dekel and Scotchmer (1999) developed an evolutionary model of preference-formation, to investigate to what extent evolution leads to risk-taking in winner-take-all environments (like reproduction). They show that winner-take-all games are related to the survival of risk-takers and the extinction of risk-averters. Since in many species a winner-take-all game determines the males’ right to reproduce, the argument suggests that males will evolve to be risktakers. Similar evolutionary explanations are consistent with women being more sensitive to social cues than men. In exercising choosiness about mate selection, women who were sensitive to these cues could, on average, produce more fit offspring than those who were not. In contrast this increased sensitivity did not affect a male’s chance of reproduction, and was thus not selected for. Indirect evidence on the nature/nurture question comes from the studies with children (before nurture has full impact) and cross-culturally (when nature remains constant but nurture changes). The evidence we have here suggests that gender differences in preferences remain among children and in different cultures, providing support for the nature over nurture explanation. Of course, some cultural differences have been identified, suggesting that nurture has an effect as well.

Also eine klassische evolutionspsychologische Erklärung. Wem diese zu vage ist, der kann auch eine rein medizinisch-hormonelle Erklärung suchen. Die Präferenzen, die hier geprüft worden sind, stehen meines Wissen nach jeweils mit Testosteron (Risikobereitschaft und Spass am Wettbewerb) bzw. Östrogen (Empathy und soziale Punkte) in Verbindung.