Journal of Economic Literature 2009, 47:2, 448–474

http:www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jel.47.2.448

Gender Differences in Preferences

Rachel Croson and Uri Gneezy*

This paper reviews the literature on gender differences in economic experiments.

In the three main sections, we identify robust differences in risk preferences, social
(other-regarding) preferences, and competitive preferences. We also speculate on the
source of these differences, as well as on their implications. Our hope is that this
article will serve as a resource for those seeking to understand gender differences and
to use as a starting point to illuminate the debate on gender-specific outcomes in the
labor and goods markets.

1.  Introduction The main source of data used in the cur-

rent article is economics experiments. In

E conomists and policymakers have ob-

served gender differences in a number
of different domains, including consumption,
the experiments we review, the decisions
that individuals make allow the researcher
to isolate one factor of a decision (e.g., risk
investment and, perhaps of most concern, in preferences) and study it in isolation from
the labor market (see Francine D. Blau and other factors (e.g., altruism). Experiments
Lawrence M. Kahn 2000 for a review). It is are also replicable, so the same experiment
often hypothesized that these differences are can be conducted multiple times with dif-
caused by preference differences between ferent individuals with diverse backgrounds
the genders. and demographics. This allows us to test the
In this article, we review experimental impact of various parameters, such as self-
evidence on preference differences between selection and learning, on men and women.
men and women, focusing on three factors We also include some data from naturally
that have been extensively studied: risk pref- occurring markets (e.g., portfolio selection)
erences, social preferences, and reaction to when relevant.
competition.1 We find that women are indeed more risk-
averse than men. We find that the social
preferences of women are more situation-
ally specific than those of men; women are
* Croson: University of Texas, Dallas. Gneezy: Uni- neither more nor less socially oriented, but
versity of California, San Diego.
1 Another type of preference difference relates, for their social preferences are more malleable.
 
example, to family–career trade-offs. We do not explore Finally, we find that women are more averse
this issue in the current survey. This does not mean that to competition than are men.
we believe that these issues are of less importance or rel-
evance, only that experimental methods cannot illuminate A number of previous papers review experi-
them as clearly. mental psychology studies on the impact of

448
 Croson and Gneezy: Gender Differences in Preferences 449

gender.2 We hope that this article serves a using both real and hypothetical gambles.
similar purpose in economics; as a resource The robust finding is that men are more risk-
for those seeking to understand gender differ- prone than are women. Previous surveys of
ences and (perhaps) to use as a starting point economics (Catherine C. Eckel and Philip
to illuminate the debate on gender-specific J. Grossman 2008c) and psychology (James
outcomes in the labor and goods markets. P. Byrnes, David C. Miller, and William D.
The remainder of this article is divided Schafer 1999) report the same conclusions:
into three topics. Section 2 reviews evidence women are more risk averse than men in the
on gender differences in risk preferences. vast majority of environments and tasks. This
Section 3 reviews evidence on gender differ- table (and future tables as well) also note
ences in social preferences. Section 4 reviews whether the authors included controls other
evidence on gender differences in competi- than gender in their analyses (e.g., year in
tive preferences. The final section provides a school, age, major, country of origin, race, etc).
conclusion and discussion. The inclusion of controls, and exactly which
were included, varies by paper.
There are two notable and interest-
2.  Risk Preferences
ing papers in this table. First, Melissa L.
Many of the decisions people make involve Finucane et al. (2000) find a gender differ-
risk.3 In this section, we review the experi- ence among whites, but not among any other
mental economics literature examining gen- ethnic group. They term this “the white male
der differences in risk preferences. effect.” This is important because it implies
there may be cultural biases causing gender
2.1 Objective Probability Lotteries differences in risk taking. This topic of cul-
ture will reemerge in the section on compe-
To set the stage, we begin by discussing risk- tition below. The second paper is by Renate
taking in what we call objective probability Schubert et al. (1999) who find one situa-
lotteries, with known probabilities and dollar tion in which men are more risk averse than
outcomes. Table 1 lists ten papers investigat- women: when lotteries are framed as losses
ing gender differences in risk preferences rather than gains.4

2 Meta-analyses have been published in examin- 3 We use “risk” and “uncertainty” interchangeably
    
ing the impact of gender on intelligence testing (e.g., throughout the paper. We do not use Knight’s (1921) dis-
Marise Born, Nico Bleichrodt and Henk van der Flier tinction by which risk refers to situations where one knows
1987); cognitive ability including mathematical, ver- the probabilities and uncertainty refers to situations when
bal, and spatial ability (e.g., Janet S. Hyde, Elizabeth this randomness cannot be expressed in terms of specific
Fennema and Susan J. Lamon 1990); personality devel- probabilities. This is in line with the approach that, even
opment (e.g., Alan Feingold 1994); conformity and under uncertainty, one can assign subjective probabilities
social influence (e.g., Blair T. Johnson and Alice H. to outcomes. It is interesting to note that, while most real
Eagly 1989); self-disclosure (e.g., Kathryn Dindia and life situations involve Knight’s uncertainty, laboratory
Michael Allen 1992); leadership style, evaluation, and experiments are more focused on decisions under risk in
effectiveness (e.g., Eagly, Steven J. Karau, and Mona G. which probabilities are known.
Makhijani 1995); aggressive behavior (e.g., Eagly and 4 One paper not included in the table, Tomomi Tanaka,
 
Valerie J. Steffen 1986); and social behavior (e.g., Eagly Colin F. Camerer, and Quang Nguyen (forthcoming), finds
and Wendy Wood 1991). In an excellent overall review, no significant risk differences in estimations of prospect-
Eagly (1995) describes over twenty-five years of psy- theory preferences (no gender differences in loss aversion
chological gender research (see also the heated debate or in the curvature of the value function). However, they
in the February 1996 issue of American Psychologist do not report gender differences in risk aversion param-
that followed). eters from traditional expected utility models.
450 Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XLVII (June 2009)

Table 1

Experimental Gain/ Controls

details Pay loss Summary Risk taking included?

Holt and Students Yes Gain Choice between lotteries Low payoffs: Yes
Laury according to mean–variance. M> F
(2002) Varied also the level of pay High payoffs:
M= F
Hartog, Mail survey No Gain Willingness to pay for high-stakes M> F Yes
Ferrer-I- and Dutch lotteries. Gender difference in risk
Carbonell, and newspaper aversion parameter is estimated at
Jonker (2002) 10 to 30 percent

Dohmen et Rep. sample real Both Survey instrument is validated in M> F Yes
al. (2005) of German and experiments. Survey questions
population hyp predicted behavior well
and students

Powell and Students Yes Both Choice of insurance cover in one M> F No
Ansic (1997) treatment and an unfamiliar finan-
cial decision about gains in another
Eckel and Students Yes Both Choice between lotteries according M> F Yes
Grossman to mean–variance. Frame (gain/
(2008a) loss) changed between treatment
Eckel and Students Yes Both Choice between lotteries according M> F Yes
Grossman to mean–variance. Lotteries and
(2008c) investment frames with the possibil-
ity of loss, and a lottery frame with
no loss

Fehr-Duda, Students Yes Both Gender differences depend on the M> F Yes
Gennaro, size of the probabilities for the lot-
and Schubert teries’ larger outcomes
(2006)

Levin, Students No Both Half of the subjects were given the M> F No
Snyder, and “chance of winning” each gamble,
Chapman and half were given the “chance of
(1988) losing” each lottery

Finucane Phone survey No Both Ethnically diverse group of partici- M> F Yes
et al. (2000) pants. White males were more risk
taking than all other groups
Schubert Students Yes Both Choice between certain payoffs Gains: No
et al. (1999) and lotteries in abstract and contex- M> F
tual frames Losses:
M> F
Contextual:
M= F
 Croson and Gneezy: Gender Differences in Preferences 451

2.2 Portfolio Selection: High Stakes holds. Bernasek and Stephanie Shwiff (2001)
Decisions ­overcome this by obtaining detailed infor-
mation about the gender of the household’s
In economics, the highest-stakes deci- decision maker and the household financial
sions made by individuals, for themselves decision-making process. Using a survey on
or as agents working for others, are often pension investments of universities’ faculty
of special interest. It is an open question employees, they again show that women tend
whether laboratory experiments with small to be more risk averse.
stakes will yield conclusions that generalize In summary, we find that women are more
to these high-stakes settings. One approach risk averse than men in lab settings as well
is to conduct experiments with high stakes as in investment decisions in the field. While
when possible (e.g., in poor countries where gender differences in risk preferences are
modest payments by Western standards relatively consistent, very few explanations
have high purchasing power). Most of the are offered for the observed differences. In
comparisons between high- and low-stakes the remainder of this section, we identify
data have shown that conclusions driven some potential explanations and discuss the
from modest stakes do generalize. However, evidence supporting each. We also identify
in the domain of financial risk taking, we exceptions to the general result in particular
can often generate direct evidence. There tasks and by special subject pools.
are several studies directly comparing high-
stakes decisions of men and women, and this 2.3 Explanations for the Gender Difference
literature demonstrates strong gender dif- in Risk Taking
ferences, consistent with the results found in
the lab. 2.3.1 Emotions
For example, Annika E. Sunden and Brian
J. Surette’s (1998) investigation of the alloca- The first explanation offered for gender dif-
tion of defined contribution plan assets finds ferences in risk taking is based on differences
that sex is significantly related to asset alloca- in emotional reactions to risky situations. In
tion. Single women were less risk prone than an influential paper, George F. Loewenstein
single men, consistent with the lab evidence et al. (2001) develop what they call “risk
above (see also Finucane et al. 2000; Nancy as feelings” (see also the discussion of the
Ammon Jianakoplos and Alexandra Bernasek “affect heuristic” in Paul Slovic et al. 2002);
1998). Similarly, Richard P. Hinz, David D. referring to our fast, instinctive and intui-
McCarthy, and John A. Turner (1997) used tive reactions to risk. These affective reac-
data on participants in the federal govern- tions are often better predictors of what we
ment’s Thrift Savings Plan and found that do when facing a risky choice than the more
women invest their pension assets more con- cognitive, reasoned approaches. We believe
servatively than men. A large percentage of that this framework is crucial in understand-
women invested in the minimum-risk port- ing gender differences in risk preferences.
folio available to them. Married women also We look at the gender-specific influence of
invest less in common stock than married emotions on outcomes and probabilities.
men (see also Vickie L. Bajtelsmit and Jack Previous research from psychology indi-
L. VanDerhei 1997). cates that women experience emotions more
A potential problem with these studies is strongly than men (see the review in R. A.
the inability to find out who makes invest- Harshman and A. Paivio 1987). A stronger
ment decisions in married couple house- emotional experience can affect the utility of
452 Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XLVII (June 2009)

a risky choice. In particular, women report probabilities is found by Helga Fehr-Duda,

more intense nervousness and fear than Manuele de Gennaro, and Schubert (2006).
men in anticipation of negative outcomes In their experiment, risk taking depends on
(e.g., Leslie R. Brody 1993; Frank Fujita, the size of the probabilities for the lotteries’
Ed Diener, and Ed Sandvik 1991). If nega- larger outcomes. Women are more risk averse
tive outcomes are experienced as worse by in decisions with large probabilities in the
women than by men, they will naturally be gain domain and in decisions with small and
more risk averse when facing a risky situa- medium probabilities in the loss domain. The
tion. Thus gender differences in emotional relation between the size of the probability
experiences of outcomes, especially lower and the emotional reaction is yet an open ques-
utility resulting from bad outcomes, is one tion in the literature. Yuval Rottenstreich and
explanation of increased risk aversion. Christopher K. Hsee (2001) demonstrate that
Emotions also affect the perceptions of individuals use different probability weights
probability. Previous research demonstrates for high-affect and low-affect gambles, but no
that, in identical situations, women tend to gender differences have been demonstrated
feel fear and men tend to feel anger (Michele in this probability weighting function.
Grossman and Wood 1993). There is also
2.3.2 Overconfidence
evidence that, when individuals are angry,
they evaluate a given gamble as less risky A second reason for gender differences in
than they do when they are afraid (Jennifer risk attitudes and in the evaluation of risk may
S. Lerner et al. 2003). Thus if women are relate to confidence. The literature finds that
more likely to be afraid of losing (e.g., to both men and women are often overconfident,
overweight the probability of a loss), relative with men being more overconfident in their
to men, they will evaluate a given gamble as success in uncertain situations than women
being more risky, and will act in a more risk- (Sarah Lichtenstein, Baruch Fischhoff, and
averse way. Lawrence D. Phillips 1982; Kay Deaux and
A recent demonstration provides an ele- Elizabeth Farris 1977; Mary A. Lundeberg,
gant test of the different influence of fear and Paul W. Fox, and Judith Punccohar 1994). For
anger on estimation of probabilities and the example, Ralph Estes and Jinoos Hosseini
resulting risk-taking behavior. Lerner et al. (1988) investigate the effects of selected vari-
(2003) study the emotional reactions that fol- ables on investor confidence. Subjects were
lowed September 11th by surveying a nation- asked to examine the financial statements of
ally representative sample of Americans on a hypothetical company and then decide how
September 20, 2001. They find that experi- much to invest in it. Next, the subjects were
encing more anger in response to September asked to assess their confidence in the cor-
11th (men experienced more anger) triggered rectness of this investment decision.5 Women
more optimistic beliefs about future gambles, were substantially less confident than men in
while experiencing more fear in response to their investment decisions. In Jack B. Soll and
September 11th (women experienced more Joshua Klayman (2004), participants were
fear) triggered greater pessimism. Across asked to provide high and low estimates such
all risks, males expressed lower perceptions
of risk than did females, and differences in 5 Note that this measure of overconfidence (how sure
 
reported emotions explained a large part of the individual is in their decision) is different than the
the variance. question of misestimation of probabilities. The latter
involves estimating the likelihood of an event occurring in
An interesting aspect of gender differ- the world, while the former involves estimating the likeli-
ences in the assessment of risk for different hood that one’s own estimate is likely to be correct.
 Croson and Gneezy: Gender Differences in Preferences 453

that they were X percent sure that the cor- 2.4 Exceptions to the Rule: Managers and
rect answer for a given question lay between Professional Populations
them. Participants exhibited substantial over-
confidence: The correct answer fell inside Many of the studies discussed above selected
their intervals much less than X percent of the members of the general population (or the
time. Both men and women were overconfi- convenient university population). However,
dent, but men were more biased than women some studies have focused on a subsample of
(for women, .58X percent of the answers fell the population; managers and professionals.
within the stated range in experiment 1 and Among this population, gender differences in
.60X percent in experiment 3, compared with financial risk preferences are smaller than in
a performance for men of .40X percent in the general population and often nonexistent.
experiment 1 and .51X percent in experiment For example, Stanley M. Atkinson,
3). Samantha Boyce Baird, and Melissa B.
Muriel Niederle and Lise Vesterlund (2007) Frye (2003) compared the performance
find that men are substantially more overcon- and investment behavior of male and female
fident about their relative performance in a fixed-income mutual fund managers. They
task (solving mathematical problems) than find that the way male and female managed
women, and that the beliefs on relative perfor- funds do not differ significantly in terms of
mance help predict entry decisions into com- performance, risk, and other fund character-
petition (see the competition section below). istics. Their results suggest that differences
If men are more confident of their likelihood in investment behavior often attributed to
of coming out ahead in the gamble, they will gender may be related to investment knowl-
be more likely to accept it than are women. edge and wealth constraints.
J. E. V. Johnson and P. L. Powell (1994)
2.3.3 Risk as Challenge or Threats
compare decision-making characteristics of
A final explanation that we present for males and females in a “nonmanagerial” pop-
the observed risk preference difference is ulation (in which the majority of individuals
the interpretation of the risky situation. For have not undergone formal management
example, Elizabeth Arch (1993) offers an education), with those of a “managerial”
explanation of the gender difference in risk population of potential and actual manag-
taking on the basis of the believed appropri- ers who have undertaken such education.
ate response. Males are more likely to see a The managerial subpopulation males and
risky situation as a challenge that calls for females display similar risk propensity and
participation, while females interpret risky make decisions of equal quality, while in the
situations as threats that encourage avoid- nonmanagerial subpopulation women are
ance. This theme will reappear in the section more risk averse than men. Similar results
on competitive behavior as well. are reported by Robert Master and Robert
Arch argues that differences in risk behav- Meier (1988) with participants who owned a
ior do not result from differences in ability, small business or managed one and by Sue
persistence, or eagerness to perform a task Birley (1989), who studies entrepreneurs.
well. Rather, the differences result from a The conclusion is that gender differences in
different motivation between genders. Men risk preferences among the general population
are more stimulated by challengeing, ego- do not extend to managers. This could be the
involving situations; women are not stimu- result of selection; people that are more risk
lated by the same factors, and may even be taking tend to choose managerial positions.
impaired by them (Jeanne H. Block 1983). While fewer women select these positions,
454 Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XLVII (June 2009)

those that do choose them have similar risk Future research should try to disentangle
preferences as men. This result could also be the two possible driving forces behind this
an adaptive behavior to the requirements of exception to the rule: selection (more risk
the job. In any case, the evidence suggests that taking people choose and remain in profes-
managers and professional business persons sional careers) and learning (people learn
present an important exception to the rule from their professional environment).
that women are more risk averse than men.
A nice piece of evidence that ties together
3.  Differences in Social Preferences
this exception to the general rule is presented
by Peggy D. Dwyer, James H. Gilkeson, and When individuals exhibit a social prefer-
John A. List (2002) who use data from nearly ence, others’ payoffs (or utilities) enter into
2,000 mutual fund investors and find that their utility function. Social preferences are
women take less risk than men in their mutual modeled in the economic literature in the
fund investments. However, the observed dif- form of altruism (e.g., Gary S. Becker 1974;
ference in risk taking is significantly attenu- James Andreoni 1989), envy (e.g., Vai-Lam
ated when a financial investment knowledge Mui 1995), inequality aversion (e.g., Gary E.
control variable is included in the regres- Bolton and Axel Ockenfels 2000; Ernst Fehr
sion model (see Matthias Gysler, Kruse, and and Klaus M. Schmidt 1999), or reciprocity
Schubert 2002 for similar results in the lab). (e.g., Matthew Rabin 1993; Gary Charness
and Rabin 2002; Armin Falk and Urs
2.5 Conclusion
Fischbacher 2006; Martin Dufwenberg and
A large literature documents gender dif- Georg Kirchsteiger 2004). While all these
ferences in risk taking; women are more risk models describe how an individual may be
averse than men. We highlight some of the other-regarding, the extent and form of the
factors that we believe cause this gender dif- social preferences may also differ across the
ference. One major factor is the affective genders.
reaction to risk. Men and women differ in In this section, we discuss a number of
their emotional reaction to uncertain situa- studies that demonstrate how strongly (and
tions and this differential emotional reaction in what direction) social preferences mani-
results in differences in risk taking. Emotions fest themselves in men and in women. We
affect the evaluation of outcomes as well as include evidence on altruism and inequality-
the evaluation of probabilities. However, aversion from ultimatum and dictator game
emotions are not the only reason for gender studies. We also include evidence on reci-
differences in risk preferences. Men are also procity from studies using trust and related
more confident than women and, as a result, games. Finally, we briefly mention a large
may have a different perception of the prob- number of older studies using the Prisoners’
ability distribution underlying a given risk. Dilemma game and discuss in more detail
Men also tend to view risky situations as chal- recent studies using social dilemmas and/or
lenges, as opposed to threats, which leads to public goods provision games.6
increased risk tolerance.
Those differences are found in most 6 In addition, we identified four studies investigat-
domains of risk taking. It is interesting to ing the impact of gender on coordination (Charles Bram
note that these differences are attenuated Cadsby and Elizabeth Maynes 1998, Cadsby et al. 2007,
by experience and profession. For example, Hakan J. Holm 2000, and Rachel Croson, Melanie Marks,
and Jessica Snyder 2008). Since these studies speak only
studies with managers and entrepreneurs weakly to the question of other-regarding preferences,
find no gender differences in risk ­preferences. they are not reviewed here.
 Croson and Gneezy: Gender Differences in Preferences 455

Results on gender differences vary in these receives zero.7 The earliest ultimatum exper-
studies. For example, sometimes women are iment was Werner Guth, Rolf Schmittberger,
more trusting than men and sometimes less and Bernd Schwarze (1982).
so. We believe that this variance is explained Although this game has a continuum of
by a differential sensitivity of men and Nash equilibria, there is a unique subgame
women to the social conditions in the experi- perfect equilibrium (assuming selfish players)
ment. Research from psychology suggests in which the proposer offers the responder ε,
that women are more sensitive to social cues and the responder accepts. Deviations from
in determining appropriate behavior than are this equilibrium on the responder’s side (that
men (Carol Gilligan 1982). Small differences is, the rejection of positive offers) have been
in experimental design and implementation interpreted as inequality-aversion, negative
can affect these social cues, leading women to reciprocity, or punishment. Deviations from
appear more other-regarding in some experi- this equilibrium on the proposer’s side (that
ments and less other-regarding in others. is, the making of positive offers) have been
Throughout this section, we provide two interpreted as inequality-aversion, altruism,
types of data to support our explanation. and (occasionally) risk-aversion.
First, we look within experiments that have Two lab experiments examine gender
demonstrated gender differences for evidence effects in ultimatum settings: Eckel and
that women are more responsive than men Grossman (2001) and Sara J. Solnick (2001).
to the conditions of the experiment. Second, Both find that men and women offer the
we look between studies and compare the same amounts, and that offers made to
differences in male and female behavior. If men are higher than offers made to women.
our explanation is correct, we will see more However, these studies differ in their charac-
variability in female behavior across related terization of responder behavior (Eckel and
studies than in male behavior. This evidence Grossman 2008a).
is summarized in section 3.4. Eckel and Grossman find that women are
As with risk preferences, psychologists more likely to accept lower offers than men.
have also studied social preferences of the In contrast, Solnick found that women were
genders. Meta-analyses of gender differ- more demanding than men. These differ-
ences in social loafing, which maps to pub- ences may be attributable to differences in
lic goods contributions and social dilemma the conditions of the experiment. In Eckel
games (Karau and Kipling D. Williams and Grossman (2001), participants are
1993), and helping behavior, which maps paired with a responder randomly chosen
into altruism (Eagly and Maureen Crowley from a group of four counterparts sitting
1986), are both useful sources for the inter- across an aisle, who were either all female,
ested reader. all male, or of mixed genders. Proposers
made offers that were communicated to
3.1 Ultimatum Games
responders who accepted or rejected them.
In the ultimatum game, two players are In Solnick (2001), ­participants sat on oppo-
allocated a sum of money (the pie) that can be site sides of a curtain and had no face-to-
divided between them. The proposer makes face contact. Her study used the strategy
an offer to the responder of how the money
will be divided, which the responder accepts
7 Note that the ultimatum game is a simplified form of
or rejects. If the offer is accepted, each
alternating-offer bargaining (also called Stahl-Rubinstein
party receives the amount that the proposer bargaining). While many experiments have been run in
suggested. If the offer is rejected, each party the latter paradigm, none have examined gender effects.
456 Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XLVII (June 2009)

Table 2
Rejection Rates in Ultimatum Games

  Eckel and Grossman Solnick |Difference|  

Male Responders  
M to M 18.8% 4.5% 14.3%
F to M 9.4% 6.3% 3.2%  
|Difference| 9.4% 1.7% 8.7% Average
 
Female Responders  
M to F 17.2% 0.0% 17.2%
F to F 3.1% 23.1% 20.0%  
|Difference| 14.1% 23.1% 18.6% Average
 
F–M 4.7% 21.4%
Controls included? Yes No

method, where responders indicated their percent difference in Eckel and Grossman).
minimum ­w illingness to accept. Gender In contrast, women’s rejection rates are quite
was communicated by the first name of the sensitive to the gender of their counterpart (a
counterpart (a practice which Holm 2000 23.1 percent difference in Solnick and a 14.1
suggests yields the same results as inform- percent difference in Eckel and Grossman).
ing the participant “your counterpart is a (fe) These comparisons, and similar analyses
male student”; see also Chaim Fershtman below, support our organizing explanation of
and Uri Gneezy 2001). greater context sensitivity of women.
Table 2 shows rejection rates in comparable In an ultimatum field experiment, Guth,
conditions to enable a comparison between Carsten Schmidt, and Matthias Sutter (2007)
the studies. When men are responders, their asked readers of a weekly news magazine to
rejection rates differ by an average of 8.7 per- propose (and respond to) offers in a three-
cent between the two studies. When women party ultimatum game. In this game, the pro-
are responders, their rejection rates differ poser makes an offer to split a pie between
by an average of 18.6 percent between the himself, the responder (who can accept or
two studies. This suggests that behavior of reject as usual), and a dummy player who has
female responders is more sensitive to the no decision authority. They find that female
experimental context (face-to-face, strategy participants are significantly more likely to
vs. game methods) than is the behavior of propose a three-way equal split than are
male responders. men, and suggest it is due to altruism or
Comparing rejection rates within the inequality aversion.
studies provides further evidence of greater However, given the ultimatum game struc-
context-sensitivity by women. In both stud- ture, these behavioral differences could also
ies, men’s rejection rates are not very sen- be due to risk aversion (see previous section).
sitive to the gender of their proposer (a Dictator games allow us to tease apart these
1.8 percent difference in Solnick and a 9.4 competing motivations.
 Croson and Gneezy: Gender Differences in Preferences 457

3.2 Dictator Games making the allocations is a disinterested third

party (rather than a self-interested dictator),
In the dictator (Robert Forsythe et al. and find the same results. Reinhard Selten
1994) game, the proposer again has a pie of and Ockenfels (1998) use a variant of the dic-
money to divide between himself and the tator game called the solidarity game, where
recipient. But the recipient has no decision to participants can offer “conditional gifts” to
make; she can only accept the offer. Thus the insure each other against losses, and again
dictator game is really an allocation problem. find that women are more inequality-averse
Proposer decisions can be caused by inequal- than men. Dufwenberg and Astri Muren
ity aversion or altruism, but strategic or risk- (2006a) look at gender effects in a team dic-
related concerns are not relevant here. tator game (originally studied by Timothy
Two studies use a simple dictator setting N. Cason and Mui 1997), where groups of
to investigate gender effects. In Eckel and three divide money between themselves and
Grossman (1998), participants play a double- a fourth recipient. The researchers find that
blind dictator game with a $10 pie. They find female majority groups give the fourth party
that in conditions of anonymity, women give significantly more than male majority groups,
almost twice as much as men to their paired and are more likely to implement equal splits,
recipient (on average women give $1.60 and again supporting the notion that women are
men give $0.82). In Bolton and Elena Katok more inequality-averse than men.
(1995), a less anonymous design is used in A number of studies go beyond identify-
which participants again divide $10. The ing the main effects of gender to look at the
options facing the participants are less con- interaction of the genders of the proposer
tinuous, and no subject is permitted to offer and recipient in two-party dictator games.
more than $5. They again find that women In Dufwenberg and Muren (2006b), par-
give slightly more than men, but this differ- ticipants are told that their counterpart is a
ence is not close to statistically significant “randomly selected (fe)male student in the
(on average women give $1.23 and men give course.” This experiment involves almost no
$1.13). anonymity and, consistent with Bolton and
However, note again the comparison be- Katok, they find no significant differences
tween these two studies. As the social con- between male and female giving.
ditions of the experiment changed, male In contrast, Avner Ben-Ner, Fanmin Kong,
giving changed by $0.31 while female giving and Louis Putterman (2004) run dictator
changed by $0.37. This again suggests that games with male, female, and partners of
the behavior of women (at least somewhat) is unknown gender. They find no gender differ-
more sensitive to the conditions of the experi- ences in giving when the gender of the recip-
ment than the behavior of men. ient is unknown (women give 3.29 out of 10,
Four papers find that women are more men give 3.41) or male (women give 3.81,
inequality averse in their dictator giving. men give 3.50). However, women give signif-
Andreoni and Vesterlund (2001) manipu- icantly less to other women (2.185) than they
late the cost–benefit ratio of giving money do to men (3.81) or to persons of unknown
to the recipient. They find that women are gender (3.29). A similar manipulation was run
more concerned with equalizing earnings in which the recipient was described as being
between the parties, while men are more “from Minnesota” (the home state of most of
concerned with maximizing efficiency. David the participants) or “not from Minnesota.”
L. Dickinson and Jill Tiefenthaler (2002) run This distinction was relevant for women, who
similar experiments, except that the party sent less to out-of-staters than they did to
458 Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XLVII (June 2009)

fellow Minnesota residents, but not for men. by Camerer and Keith Weigelt (1988). More
This study thus provides additional evidence continuous versions were introduced by Joyce
that women are sensitive to the social context Berg, John W. Dickhaut, and Kevin A. McCabe
of the experiment (the gender or home state (1995) and John B. Van Huyck, Raymond
of the recipient) in ways that men are not. C. Battalio, and Mary F. Walters (1995). In
Paralleling these results, Daniel Houser these games, player one can send all, some, or
and Daniel Schunk (2007) run dictator games none of his endowment to player two (in the
with schoolchildren between 8 and 10 years Kreps version, the decision is binary; send all
old. Children allocated 20 M&Ms between or send none). The amount sent is multiplied,
themselves and another child. They also find usually by 3 (occasionally by 2), and received
that girls’ giving was sensitive to the gender by player two. Player two can then return as
of their counterpart, girls offer more to boys much or as little of the money in her posses-
(9.8) than to other girls (7.9), and this differ- sion (sometimes including her initial endow-
ence is statistically significant; p < .05. In ment) to player one (in the Kreps version the
contrast, boys’ offers are not statistically dif- decision is again binary; return half or none).
ferent depending on whether they’re offering Note that this second stage exactly mirrors
to boys (6.7) or to girls (4.6); p > .1 (Houser a dictator game as described above; player
and Schunk 2007, p. 10). two is a dictator toward player one. However,
In summary, these studies find that men the motivations for returning behavior may
choose efficient allocations while women are be different; here the pie which player two
more inequality averse. However, compari- divides is created by the trusting actions and
sons between the first two studies (Eckel and vulnerability of player one. In this section, we
Grossman 1998 and Bolton and Katok 1995), distinguish the two behaviors: trust (the send-
and within the final two studies (Ben-Ner et ing of resources to player two) and reciprocity
al. 2004 and Houser and Schunk 2007), sug- or trustworthiness (the returning of resources
gest that women’s decisions are more context- to player one).
specific than men’s. Table 3 describes a number of studies
examining gender in trust and trust-related
3.3 Trust and Reciprocity
games.
Another series of experiments examine
3.3.1. Trusting Behavior
social preferences like trust and reciprocity.
What differentiates these games from those The amount sent (or likelihood of send-
above is that they are typically positive-sum, ing in discrete games) is usually used as a
involving a multiplier for money passed to measure of trusting behavior. Unfortunately,
a second party. They also explicitly test for like the first move in an ultimatum game,
second-mover behaviors that are conditional. this decision confounds trust and risk pref-
Reciprocity, also called conditional altruism, erences. Thus while a series of studies finds
describes behavior in which one party’s pref- that women send the same or less than men
erences over another party’s consumption in this setting, this can be attributed either to
are conditional on the other party’s actions. I lower trust or to risk aversion.
act altruistically toward you if and only if you A number of studies find no gender dif-
have been generous with me in the past. ferences in sending behavior (Croson and
Many of the studies below rely on the Nancy R. Buchan 1999; Kenneth Clark
trust game paradigm. A discrete version of and Martin Sefton 2001; James C. Cox
the trust game was introduced by David M. and Cary A. Deck 2006; Iris Bohnet 2007;
Kreps (1990) and first experimentally tested Christiane Schwieren and Sutter 2008;
 Croson and Gneezy: Gender Differences in Preferences 459

Table 3
Trust Games

Controls
Study Experimental details Trust Reciprocity included?

Croson and Buchan (1999) Continuous game M= F M< F Yes

U.S., China, Japan, Korea    
   
Schwieren and Sutter (2008) Continuous game M= F M< F No
trust in behavior versus ability in behavior in behavior
   
Clark and Sefton (2001) Sequential PD M= F M= F Yes
trust = 1st, reciprocity = 2nd    
   
Cox and Deck (2006) Discrete game M= F M= F No
vary size of pie, single/double blind, response    
   
Bohnet (2007) Continuous game (study 1) M= F M= F Yes
   
Ashraf et al. (2006) Continuous game M= F M= F Yes
U.S., Russia, South Africa, strategy method    
   
Eckel and Wilson (2004a) Discrete game M> F M= F Yes
choice of partners (represented by icons)    
   
Migheli (2007) Continuous game M> F M= F Yes
   
Innocenti and Pazienga (2006) Continuous game M> F M= F No
double blind, gender communicated man/woman   
   
Slonim (2006) Mostly continuous game M> F M= F Yes
partner selection (gender, age known) no selection no selection
   
Kanagaretnam et al. (2006) Continuous game M> F M= F Yes
multiple rounds, repaired, switch roles    
   
Snijders and Keren (2001) Discrete game M> F M< F Yes
subjects play both roles (strategy method)    
   
Chaudhuri and Continuous game M> F M< F No
Gangadharan (2007) subjects play both roles (strategy method)    
   
Buchan et al. (2008) Continuous game M> F M< F No
interaction of gender by first name, F, M or unknown   
   
Garbarino and Slonim (2009) Mostly continuous game M> F na Yes
online panel, strategy method, within subject    
   
Bellemare and Kroger (2007) Continuous game M< F M> F Yes
Dutch panel of Ss, strategy method    
   
Eckel and Wilson (2004b) Discrete game M > F written M= F Yes
written info or photo of partner M < F photo  
   
Ben-Ner et al. (2004) Sequential dictator, same or different pairings na M< F Yes
double-blind    
   
Eckel and Grossman (1996) Sequential dictator na M< F Yes
   
Bohnet et al. (forthcoming) Betrayal aversion game M= F na No
Kuwait M > F
460 Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XLVII (June 2009)

Bohnet, Benedikt Hermann, and Richard sent by men is .46, but by women is .60.
Zeckhauser forthcoming). Other studies Women thus appear more responsive to the
find that men are more trusting than women conditions of the experiment, especially to
(Eckel and Rick K. Wilson 2004b; Chris knowing the gender of their counterpart (and
Snijders and Gideon Keren 2001; Ananish the realization of what that gender is) than
Chaudhuri and Lata Gangadharan 2007; men, similar to the results of Ben-Ner et al.
Buchan, Croson, and Solnick 2008; Matteo and Houser and Schunk in dictator games
Migheli 2007; Alessandro Innocenti and described above.
Maria Grazia Pazienza 2006; Robert Slonim Finally, in Eckel and Wilson (2004a), par-
2006; Ellen Garbarino and Slonim 2009). ticipants are either told information about
Only a very few studies find women more their counterpart or see their picture. The
trusting than men (Charles Bellemare and results indicate that women trust less than
Sabine Kröger 2003; Bohnet, Hermann, and men when they have only written informa-
Zeckhauser forthcoming in Kuwait only). We tion about their counterpart, but more than
believe that these inconsistent gender differ- men when they have a photo. Again, women’s
ences are caused by greater responsiveness behavior is more variable than men’s behav-
of women to conditions of the experiment. ior. There is a 19 percentage point differ-
Three within-study comparisons provide ence between the male trusting rates in the
direct evidence for our explanation. two conditions (92 percent versus 73 per-
In Cox and Deck (2006), the authors cent), and a 24 percentage point difference
vary the size of the pie available, the social between the female trusting rates in the two
distance of the experiment (single versus conditions (64 percent versus 88 percent).
double-blind), and the ability of the second Anna Dreber and Johannesson (2008)
player to respond. The proportion of women compared trusting behavior between men
who send varies from 64 percent to 32 per- and women using a different experimental
cent with the conditions for a range of 32 setting introduced by Gneezy (2005). The
percentage points. In contrast, the propor- setting consists of a sender–receiver game in
tion of men who send varies from 55 percent which the sender has a monetary incentive
to 35 percent for a range of only 20 percent- to send a deceptive message to the receiver,
age points. A probit model in table 4 of their and the receiver can either act according to
paper reports that the decisions of men are the message or not, indicating distrust. They
not statistically sensitive to the treatments, found no difference in trusting behavior
but that the decisions of women are. The between men and women, as indicated by
authors write “ . . . depending on the deci- receivers acting in accordance with the mes-
sion context, women may appear to be more sage sent. They did, however, find that male
or less generous than men because men are senders were more likely to send a deceptive
relatively less responsive . . . ” (p. 597). message.
In Buchan, Croson, and Solnick (2008), In summary, a number of studies have
the authors look at the interaction of the demonstrated that women trust less than or
two genders; participants in this study either the same as men in these settings. But wom-
know (or do not know) the gender-specific en’s trust levels are more context-sensitive
first name of their counterpart in a continu- than those of men.
ous trust game. The range of amounts (max
3.3.2. Reciprocal Behavior
minus min) that men send is $1.22, while the
range of amounts that women send is $1.47. While some studies have found no gen-
The standard deviation of average amounts der differences in reciprocity (Clark and
 Croson and Gneezy: Gender Differences in Preferences 461

Sefton 2001; Cox and Deck 2006; Eckel matter of principle: one is, or is not, fair . . . .
and Wilson 2004b; Eckel and Wilson 2004a; For women, fairness does not appear to be
Bohnet 2007; Migheli 2007; Innocenti and a moral imperative. Choices are made with
Pazienza 2006; Slonim 2006), others have greater consideration of the circumstances
found that women are more reciprocal than surrounding the decision . . . . Women are
men (Croson and Buchan 1999; Chaudhuri less likely to be driven by a rigid ethical
and Gangadharan 2007; Snijders and Keren code” (pp. 153–54, italics ours). We find this
2001; Buchan, Croson, and Solnick 2008; explanation compelling, and have provided
Schwieren and Sutter 2008; Ben-Ner et al. further evidence throughout this section
2004; Eckel and Grossman 1996). One study, (summarized below) that the increased sensi-
Bellemare and Kroger (2007), finds that men tivity of women to the context of the situation
are more reciprocal than women. is the cause of inconsistent gender differences
Two experiments demonstrate the in-­ in social preferences.
creased responsiveness of women to con-
text in this setting. Ben-Ner et al. (2004) 3.4 The Prisoners’ Dilemma, Social
use a two-stage dictator game with roles Dilemmas, and Public Goods Provision
being switched and pairs being either kept A great many studies from psychology have
together (specific reciprocity) or reshuffled examined gender differences in the prisoners’
(generalized reciprocity). The authors find dilemma setting. In an early study, Anatol
that women are influenced by the amount Rapoport and Albert M. Chammah (1965)
they received in the first round more strongly show that men cooperate significantly more
than are men. Thus the link between the than women, as do a series of later studies
amount received and the amount returned (e.g., Arnold Kahn, Joe Hottes, and William
is significantly stronger for women than for L. Davis 1971; David Mack, Paula N. Auburn,
men; further supporting the conclusion that and George P. Knight 1971). However, other
female behavior is more sensitive to context studies have shown that women are more
than is male behavior. cooperative than men (e.g., S. Sibley, S. Senn,
In Eckel and Grossman (1996), partici- and A. Epanchin 1968; J. T. Tedeschi, D.
pants chose to be dictators with a large pie Hiester, and J. Gahagan 1969), while others
and a counterpart who had previously acted have shown no significant differences (e.g.,
unfairly toward a third party, or with a small Robyn M. Dawes, Jeanne McTavish, and
pie and a counterpart who had previously Harriet Shaklee 1977; John Orbell, Dawes,
acted fairly. They find that women are more and Peregrine Schwartz-Shea 1994).
likely to both reward and to punish than In economics experiments, Robert H.
are men. The authors also find that female Frank, Thomas Gilovich, and Dennis T.
punishment behavior is sensitive to the cost Regan (1993) finds that women are signifi-
of punishment, while male behavior is not. cantly more cooperative than men in prison-
Women punish 64 percent of the time when ers’ dilemma games. Andreas Ortmann and
it is cheap, and 32.7 percent of the time when Lisa K. Tichy (1999) reports the same result in
it is expensive, while men punish 39.3 per- the first round of a repeated experiment, but
cent of the time when it is cheap and 40.8 that gender differences disappear over time.
percent of the time when it is expensive. Additionally, male subjects acted the same in
The authors argue that “[t]he results are mixed groups and all male groups (cooper-
consistent with Gilligan’s (1982) claims about ating 27 percent of the time and 38 percent
male and female differences. As she argues, of the time respectively). Females, however,
for men, fairness is more of an absolute, a are significantly more cooperative in the
462 Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XLVII (June 2009)

Table 4
Public Goods/Social Dilemmas

Contribution rates
  Significantly Controls
Study details Males Females different? included?
Solow and Kirkwood n = 5, continuous, identity 66% 60%   No
(2002) manipulated (strangers, MGP, band)
Cadsby and Maynes n = 4, discrete, all M/F groups, 67% 60%   No
(1998) manipulate MPCR, anonymity
Sell et al. (1993) n = 4, continuous, 57% 52%   No
all M/F/mixed/unknown groups
Andreoni and n = 5, continuous, photos of 47% 41%   No
Petrie (2007) counterparts
Brown-Kruse and n = 4, discrete, all M/F groups, 68% 56% M> F No
Hummels (1993) manipulate MPCR, comm.
Sell and Wilson (1991) n = 4, continuous, 51% 37% M> F No
full, total or no feedback
Seguino et al. (1996) n = 5 to 52, continuous game 49% 66% F> M Yes
 
Range of contributions 21% 30%  

mixed-sex groups than in all-female groups altruistic. An analysis of a large-scale VCM

(cooperating 65 percent of the time and 50 dataset exploring gender differences is cur-
percent of the time respectively). Again, this rently underway in Simon Gachter and Eva
experiment provides some support for our Poen (2004).
conjecture that women are more sensitive to Early VCM experiments find compet-
the context of the experiment than are men. ing results. Jamie Brown-Kruse and David
Economists have spent more energy inves- Hummels (1993), Jane Sell and Wilson (1991),
tigating continuous versions of dilemma and John L. Solow and Nicole Kirkwood
games in the field of public goods provision. (2002) find that men contribute more
A series of experiments investigates gender toward the public good than women. In con-
differences in the voluntary contribution trast, Stephanie Seguino, Thomas Stevens,
mechanism (VCM). In this game, intro- and Mark A. Lutz (1996) find that women
duced by Gerald Marwell and Ruth E. Ames ­contribute more toward the public good
(1981), individuals have resources they can than men. Finally, Sell, W. I. Griffith, and
allocate toward their private consumption or Wilson (1993), Cadsby and Maynes (1998),
the group’s public consumption. Resources and Andreoni and Ragan Petrie (2008) find
are worth more to the individual when pri- no significant differences.
vately consumed, but generate more social As above, these studies have significant
value when used to provide public goods. methodological differences, as described in
Equilibrium contributions toward the public table 4. However, when comparing between
good in these settings are zero, and devia- studies, we find that male contributions are
tions from that benchmark are considered more stable (with a range of 21 percent),
 Croson and Gneezy: Gender Differences in Preferences 463

than female contributions (with a range of 30 are more responsive than men to the condi-
percent). tions of the experiment. We find such evi-
Finally, Janie M. Chermak and Kate Krause dence in a wide variety of settings.
(2002) examine the effect of gender in a dif- In ultimatum games, women’s accept–reject
ferent public goods game, one modeling decisions vary more with the gender of their
common pool resources. They find that gen- partner than do men’s (Eckel and Grossman
der matters when individuals know the roles 2001; Solnick 2001). In dictator games, we
they are to play. In those treatments women find that women’s decisions are sensitive to
are more generous (take less) than men. the gender (and home state) of their counter-
However, when individuals do not know their part while men’s are not (Ben-Ner, Kong, and
roles, there are no gender differences. The Putterman 2004; Houser and Schunk 2007).
authors conclude (as do we) that “ . . . gender In trust decisions, we find that the amounts
effects . . . are sensitive to protocol and con- women send varies more than the amounts
text” (p. 61). men send with the identification (and gen-
der) of their counterpart (Buchan, Croson,
3.5 Organizing Explanation
and Solnick 2008), and with the existence
A large body of work identifies gender differ- of a picture of their counterpart (Eckel and
ences in other-regarding preferences. However, Wilson 2004b). Similarly, female trust is
many of the results are contradictory. In some sensitive to the social distance in the experi-
experiments, women are more altruistic, ment and the ability of the second player to
inequality averse, reciprocal, and cooperative respond, while male trust is not sensitive to
than men, and in others they are less so. these factors (Cox and Deck 2006).
We believe that the cause of these con- In reciprocal decisions, we again find that
flicting results is that women are more women are more sensitive to what happens in
sensitive to cues in the experimental con- the experiment. Men are less likely to pun-
text than are men. Research from psy- ish (reward) a partner who had previously
chology suggests that women are more been unfair (fair) than are women (Eckel
sensitive to social cues in determining and Grossman 1996). Women are influenced
appropriate behavior (Kahn, Hottes, and more strongly than men by the first-mover’s
Davis 1971). Small differences in experi- decision in sequential dictator games as well
mental design and implementation will (Ben-Ner et al. 2004). And women are more
thus have larger impacts on female partici- reciprocal in trust games than men (Croson
pants than on male participants. Some and Buchan 1999; Buchan, Croson, and
examples of these design and implementa- Solnick 2008; Chaudhuri and Gangadharan
tion differences include ­economic ­variables 2007; Snijders and Keren 2001; Schwieren
like the size of the payoffs, the price of and Sutter 2008).
altruismm, or the repetition of the game, Second, we look between studies and
and psychological variables like the amount compare the differences in male and
of anonymity between counterparts, the female behavior. Between-study compari-
amount of anonymity between the partici- sons of levels is always tricky, thus we are
pant and the experimenter, and the way that more careful in our interpretations here.
the situation is described. If our explanation is correct, we will see
We provide two types of analyses to sup- more variability in female behavior across
port our explanation. First, we identify related studies than in male behavior. We
experiments that have demonstrated gender find between-study evidence for our expla-
differences and look for evidence that women nation as well.
464 Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XLVII (June 2009)

In responder behavior in ultimatum reluctant than men to engage in competitive

games, we compare the Eckel–Grossman interactions like tournaments, bargaining and
and Solnick papers and find that rejection auctions. Additionally, men’s performance,
rates by women differ by 18.6 percent while relative to women’s, is improved under com-
rejection rates by men differ by only 8.7 petition. Thus as the competitiveness of an
percent. In ­d ictator giving, we compare the environment increases, the performance and
Eckel and Grossman and Bolton and Katok participation of men increase relative to that
papers and find that male giving differed by of women.
$0.31 while female giving differed by $0.37
4.1 Reacting to Competition
between the two studies. Finally, compar-
ing seven VCM experiments, we find that What happens when people find them-
female’s contributions changed by 30 per- selves in competition? Do men and women
centage points, while male’s contributions react differently to the competitive incen-
changed by only 21 percentage points. tives? Recent findings suggest that men’s
We believe, as suggested by Gilligan (1982), performance is more affected by the com-
that men’s decisions are less context-specific petitiveness of the environment than wom-
than women’s. Participants of both genders en’s performance. We demonstrate this with
are likely maximizing an underlying utility two studies.
function, but the function that men use is In the first demonstration in the lab,
less sensitive to the conditions of the experi- Gneezy, Niederle, and Aldo Rustichini (2003)
ment, information about the other party, asked men and women to solve mazes on a
and (even) the other party’s actions, than the computer for fifteen minutes. In a between-
function that women use. This causes what subjects design, participants were paid either
appear to be inconsistent results; sometimes according to a piece rate (a dollar amount per
men appear more altruistic than women maze solved) or according to a winner-take-
and other times, women appear more other- all tournament. Under the piece rate, men
regarding than men. But primarily what we performed slightly (but not statistically sig-
see is women’s behavior is more context- nificantly) better than women, solving 11.2
dependent than that of men. mazes on average, compared with 9.7 for
We conclude this section with a recent women. However, when participants were
field experiment that demonstrates this dif- paid on a competitive basis, males’ mean per-
ference in sensitivity directly. Carl Mellström formance increased significantly to 15, while
and Johannesson (2007) test whether pay- that of the female subjects remained statisti-
ing people to donate blood will crowd-out cally the same at 10.8. The main finding is
their intrinsic motivation to do so. They that in competitive situations where only the
find a strong gender difference. While men’s best person in the group is rewarded, males
donation behavior was not affected by the react with extra effort, while females do not.
­availability of payment, donations by women In a field study, Gneezy and Rustichini
were negatively affected. (2004b) tested this conjecture in a physical
education class. In a within-subject design,
children ran twice over a short track with the
4.  Competitive Behavior
teacher measuring their speed. First they ran
In this section, we look at a third gender alone, and then in pairs with different gender
difference identified in experiments: dif- compositions. When the children ran alone,
ferences in attitudes toward competition. there was no gender difference in perfor-
Recent findings suggest that women are more mance. In competition, boys’ time improved
 Croson and Gneezy: Gender Differences in Preferences 465

by .163 seconds, but girls’ ran .015 seconds tives, while the majority of females (65 per-
slower than when they ran alone. cent) request the piece-rate compensation.
It is tempting to generalize from those two When controlling for individual ability, it is
studies and conclude that “men are more evident that while many well-performing
responsive to competition.” However, there females hurt themselves financially by shy-
are still many open questions. For example, ing away from competition, poorly perform-
it is hard to know how sensitive the results ing males also hurt themselves by embracing
are to the task used. Another unanswered it. Note that those results are related to the
question regards the gender composition of findings regarding overconfidence discussed
the group. In the maze study, women did in the risk section above.
react to the competitive incentives in single Gneezy and Rustichini (2004a) used two
sex groups, but not in mixed groups. In the tasks: one that favored men (shooting bas-
race study, however, the gender composition kets) and one that favored women (solving
of the group did not affect the results, and in anagrams). When solving anagrams, 40 per-
Nabanita Datta Gupta, Anders Poulsen, and cent of the men and 25 percent of the women
Marie-Claire Villeval (2005) men competed chose to compete; in shooting baskets the
more against men than against women. numbers were 53 percent and 15 percent,
Future research is needed to answer these respectively. That is, more men than women
questions. chose the competitive environment in both
tasks, but the gap in choice was smaller with
4.2 Self-Selection
the task that favored women.
The maze and the race studies concen- These and other findings (e.g., Donald
trated on gender differences in reactions to Vandegrift and Paul Brown 2005; Datta
competition. But what if participants could Gupta, Poulsen, and Villeval 2005) suggest
choose the incentive scheme? If men and that women are less likely to choose to com-
women rationally anticipate the gender dif- pete than men. Yet, women who choose com-
ferences observed, they may very well choose petitive environments perform just as well as
different environments. Several papers have men in those settings.
investigated gender differences in the choice
4.3 Bargaining
of incentives. In these studies, participants in
lab experiments had the option of choosing One area in which avoiding competi-
their own compensation scheme: piece rate tion can have a strong impact is bargain-
or a winner-take-all tournament. ing. Competitiveness in this literature is
Niederle and Vesterlund (2007) examine ­measured indirectly by inference from
the compensation choice for addition prob- strategies. Competitiveness is associated
lems, where there are no gender differences with negotiators who make large demands
in performance under either the piece rate of their opponents or use distributive, win–
or the tournament compensation. They have lose tactics like making threats, insults,
groups of two women and two men who first and firm positional commitments. In other
experience both compensation schemes with words, competitiveness involves concerns
feedback about their own performance, and about one’s own outcomes in a conflict,
then choose the incentive scheme for the while cooperativeness is characterized by
next task. Despite the equality in perfor- a concern for the outcomes of the other
mance they find that most males (73 per- party (cooperativeness thus implies social
cent) request that their performance be preferences of some sort, as discussed above).
compensated under the tournament incen- This definition is somewhat problematic
466 Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XLVII (June 2009)

because it ignores the possibility that these a negotiation, but significant in their propen-
motivations are not mutually exclusive; sity to engage in a negotiation at all.
many interactions involve elements of both
motivations. 4.4 Why are Men More Competitive than
Many studies in psychology documented Women?
an economically small but significant gender
effect in negotiation performance (see the Why do we see this genger difference
meta-analyses in Amy E. Walters, Alice F. in attitudes and behavior? One suggested
Stuhlmacher, and Lia L. Meyer 1998; Stuhl- explanation is backlash: It might be rational
macher and Walters 1999; Joyce Neu, John L. for women to avoid negotiating in some situ-
Graham, and Mary C. Gilly 1988; and D. F. ations. Bowles, Babcock, and Lei Lai (2007)
Womak 1987). However, recent research sug- show experimentally that participants penal-
gests that studies miss an important part of ize female job candidates more than male
the process: The decision whether to initiate/ candidates for assertive negotiation behav-
take part in negotiation (that is, the selection ior (see also Eckel and Grossman 1996).
issue). Note that this question is related to the This explanation is related to the findings
above discussion of selecting into more or less in the discrimination literature regarding
competitive settings. incentives to underinvest in education, for
In a recent book on gender and negotiation, example, because the expected rewards are
Linda Babcock and Sara Laschever (2003) lower for women than for men in equilibrium
claimed that women avoid competitive nego- (Becker 1965).
tiation situations relative to men. For example, An additional set of data comes from exper-
in a laboratory study participants were told iments with children. William T. Harbaugh,
that they would be paid between $3 and $10 Krause and Steven G. Liday (2002), for
for their participation. After each participant example, show that younger boys and girls
finished, an experimenter thanked them and (second, fourth, and fifth grades) make the
said “Here’s $3. Is $3 OK?” Only 2.5 percent same dictator offers as each other, but that
of the female participants but 23 percent of older boys (ninth and twelfth grades) make
the male participants requested more money lower dictator offers than do girls (boys aver-
(Deborah A. Small et al. 2007). Babcock age 0.97 token out of 10, while girls average
(2002) reports that average starting salaries 2.12 tokens out of 10). The fact that gender
of male MBAs graduating from Carnegie differences exhibit only later in life suggests
Mellon were 7.6 percent higher than those of an environmental cause.
females. This difference is attributed to the Gneezy, Kenneth L. Leonard, and List
observation that only 7 percent of the women (forthcoming) use an experimental task to
attempted to negotiate their salary offer, explore whether there are gender differences
while 57 percent of their male counterparts in selecting into competitive environments
negotiated (see also Hannah Riley Bowles, across cultures, examining a patriarchal soci-
Babcock, and Kathleen L. McGinn 2005; ety (the Maasai in Tanzania) and a matri-
Barry Gerhart and Sara Rynes 1991; Laura lineal society (the Khasi in India). Similar
J. Kray, Leigh Thompson, and Adam D. to the evidence from the West discussed
Galinsky 2001; Kray, Galinsky, and Thompson above, Maasai men opt to compete at twice
2002; Stuhlmacher and Walters 1999). the rate as Maasai women (50 percent ver-
Thus in bargaining situations, women are sus 25 percent, respectively). However, this
less likely to exhibit competitive preferences result is reversed amongst the Khasi, where
than men, slightly in their reactions once in women choose the competitive environment
 Croson and Gneezy: Gender Differences in Preferences 467

considerably more often than Khasi men relates with prenatal testosterone, positively
(men chose to compete 39 percent of the correlates with prenatal estradial, and is fixed
time whereas women chose to compete 54 early in life (Matthew H. McIntyre 2006).
percent of the time). These results provide An interesting example of the role of bio-
further support for the argument that societal logical measurements in the auction litera-
­structure is crucially linked to the observed ture is Yan Chen, Peter Katuscak, and Emre
gender differences in competitiveness, and Ozdenoren (2009) who find that women’s
thus, that “nurture matters.” competitiveness depends on menstruation
An opposing view, that differences between and contraceptive pill usage. In first-price
men and women are based on genetic differ- auctions, while women bid significantly
ences, argues that “nature” is important as higher than men do in all phases of the
well. From Charles Darwin through today, cycle, they find a sine-like pattern of bid-
many evolutionary biologists and psycholo- ding throughout the menstrual cycle, with
gists hold that the basic structure of the higher bidding in the follicular phase and
brain is genetically determined.8 In this view, lower in the luteal phase. The studies dem-
the regularities of human behavior as well onstrate, just as convincingly, that “nature
as consistent differences between male and matters” as well.
female psychology could be inherited char- We conclude from those findings that both
acteristics. Under this nature explanation, nature and nurture are responsible for the
at some point in human history men and gender differences in competition. The inter-
women evolved different strategies to maxi- esting question is thus the weight of each fac-
mize the fitness of their genes. For example, tor and, more interestingly, the interaction of
genetic or hormonal differences could cause the two forces. Further research is clearly
women to be less competitive than men (e.g., needed.
Stephen Colarelli, Jennifer L. Spranger, and
M. Regina Hechanova 2006).
5.  Summary and Discussion
Support for this explanation can be found
in studies of the effect of biological measure- This article has reviewed the experimen-
ments on behavior. For example, ­testosterone tal literature on gender differences in risk
(and other hormones, such as cortisol) are preferences, social preferences, and competi-
known to be correlated with aggression and tive preferences. In general, this literature
are different between genders. There is a has documented fundamental differences
large literature documenting the role of tes- between men and women (with exceptions
tosterone in competitiveness (for a review, noted in the text).
see Helen S. Bateup et al. 2002). Prenatal Most lab and field studies indicate that
hormone exposure is thought to correlate women are more risk averse than men (sec-
with sexually dimorphic behaviors as well tion 2), with important exceptions for manage-
(John T. Manning and Rogan P. Taylor 2001). rial populations. We suggest a list of possible
Dreber and Moshe Hoffman (2007) recently mechanisms behind these findings, including
found that financial risk aversion correlates emotions, overconfidence, and framing.
with a proxy for prenatal hormone exposure, A number of studies also indicate that
namely the ratio between the second and women’s social preferences are different than
fourth fingers. This measure negatively cor- men’s (section 3), although the results of these
studies are varied. We suggest an organizing
8 See Darwin (1871), A. J. Bateman (1948), and Robert explanation that relies on the observation
 
L. Trivers (1972). that women are more sensitive to social cues
468 Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XLVII (June 2009)

than are men. This leads to higher variabil- correlated with other X variables either miss-
ity in women’s behavior than in men’s, which ing or observed. In the case of social prefer-
we observe both within experimental studies ences, we argue for an interaction between T
and between studies. (the experimental context) and X (the gender
Finally, a third stream of literature sug- of the participant).
gests that women’s preferences for competi- In this sense, we do not really summarize
tive situations are lower than men’s, both experimentation in the classic physical sci-
in purely competitive situations and in bar- ences sense—i.e., studies that use random-
gaining settings (section 4). One important ization to achieve identification. In particular,
and interesting question about these differ- gender is not randomly assigned. We believe
ences is whether they are ingrained (nature) that more assumptions may be needed to
or taught (nurture). We present evidence in infer what we would like to infer from these
favor of both explanations, and suggest that experimental studies, and more research is
the research question going forward should needed in this direction.
be the relative weights of these two factors Second, an important bias in the litera-
and their interaction. ture on gender differences is that journals
In summary, we have identified three types are more likely to publish papers that find a
of preferences which differ between men and gender difference than papers that do not.
women. Each of these has implications for Moreover, this publication bias may cause
the economic decisions that men and women researchers to invest more effort into finding
make in labor and product markets. differences than to finding no difference. In
We wish to end with three methodological the current article, we devote much attention
notes. First, one way to organize our discus- to including studies that do not find gender
sion is using the following simple model of differences, even when they are unpublished,
the world (see List 2006): in our attempt to counteract this bias. Going
forward, we urge researchers to routinely
Y = Xβ + τ  T + η  , record the gender of the participants when
possible (as is the case in the psychology lit-
where Y is the outcome of interest (risk pos- erature). This will greatly expand our under-
ture, social preference behavior, ­competitive standing of gender differences and avoid the
spirit), X is a vector of person-specific vari- publication bias that is currently in place.
ables (including gender), T is a binary treat- In all inference from a sample of individu-
ment variable (experimental treatments als, one is concerned about whether the par-
controlled by the researcher), η is the error ticipants in the sample are self-selected. In
component, and β and τ are estimated the field, the degree of self-selection must
parameters. often be inferred or measured indirectly. In
In the typical case, to estimate τ the ana- the lab, it can often be controlled (e.g., using
lyst simply needs proper randomization when students in a class who are required to par-
using controlled experimental methods. Here ticipate, or paid at such a high rate that virtu-
we are using T primarily as an explanatory ally all volunteer), or measured (comparing
variable for our most interesting estimate, traits of volunteers and nonvolunteers). For
that of β on the gender term. This “treatment example, we discussed above some findings
effect” is of course not randomly determined showing that women experience increases
by the researchers of the different studies, but in auction bids near the time of ovulation.
instead selected to illuminate their research Interestingly, Richard L. Doty and Colin
question of interest. T can therefore be Silverthorne (1975) find that menstrual
 Croson and Gneezy: Gender Differences in Preferences 469

cycles affect volunteering behavior; most of Bellemare, Charles, and Sabine Kröger. 2003. “On
the female volunteers for their experiment Representative Trust.” Tilburg University CentER
Discussion Paper 2003-47.
were in the ovulatory phase, whereas most Bellemare, Charles, and Sabine Kröger. 2007. “On
of the female nonparticipants were in the Representative Social Capital.” European Economic
postovulatory, premenstrual, and menstrual Review, 51(1): 183–202.
Ben-Ner, Avner, Fanmin Kong, and Louis Putterman.
phases. When data is collected in classes in 2004. “Share and Share Alike? Gender-Pairing,
which all participants take part in the experi- Personality, and Cognitive Ability as Determinants
ment, this bias should not affect the results. of Giving.” Journal of Economic Psychology, 25(5):
581–89.
But further research is needed to investigate Ben-Ner, Avner, Louis Putterman, Fanmin Kong, and
the effect of such selection biases in labora- Dan Magan. 2004. “Reciprocity in a Two-Part Dic-
tory experiments. tator Game.” Journal of Economic Behavior and
Organization, 53(3): 333–52.
Berg, Joyce, John W. Dickhaut, and Kevin A. McCabe.
References 1995. “Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History.”
Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1): 122–42.
Andreoni, James. 1989. “Giving with Impure Altruism: Bernasek, Alexandra, and Stephanie Shwiff. 2001.
Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence.” “Gender, Risk, and Retirement.” Journal of Eco-
Journal of Political Economy, 97(6): 1447–58. nomic Issues, 35(2): 345–56.
Andreoni, James, and Ragan Petrie. 2008. “Beauty, Birley, Sue. 1989. “Female Entrepreneurs: Are They
Gender and Stereotypes: Evidence from Laboratory Really Any Different?” Journal of Small Business
Experiments.” Journal of Economic Psychology, Management, 27: 32–37.
29(1): 73–93. Blau, Francine D., and Lawrence M. Kahn. 2000.
Andreoni, James, and Lise Vesterlund. 2001. “Which “Gender Differences in Pay.” Journal of Economic
Is the Fair Sex? Gender Differences in Altruism.” Perspectives, 14(4): 75–99.
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1): 293–312. Block, Jeanne H. 1983. “Differential Premises Arising
Arch, Elizabeth. 1993. “Risk-Taking: A Motivational from Differential Socialization of the Sexes: Some
Basis for Sex Differences.” Psychological Reports, Conjectures.” Child Development, 54(6): 1335–54.
73(3): 6–11. Bohnet, Iris. 2007. “Why Women and Men Trust Oth-
Ashraf, Nava, Iris Bohnet, and Nikita Piankov. 2006. ers.” In Economics and Psychology: A Promising
“Decomposing Trust and Trustworthiness.” Experi- New Cross-Disciplinary Field, ed. Bruno S. Frey
mental Economics, 9(3): 193–208. and Alois Stutzer, 89–110. Cambridge and London:
Atkinson, Stanley M., Samantha Boyce Baird, and MIT Press.
Melissa B. Frye. 2003. “Do Female Mutual Fund Bohnet, Iris, Benedikt Hermann, and Richard Zeck-
Managers Manage Differently?” Journal of Finan- hauser. Forthcoming. “The Requirements for Trust
cial Research, 26(1): 1–18. in Gulf and Western Countries.” Quarterly Journal
Babcock, Linda. 2002. “Do Graduate Students Negoti- of Economics.
ate Their Job Offers?” Unpublished. Bolton, Gary E., and Elena Katok. 1995. “An Experi-
Babcock, Linda, and Sara Laschever. 2003. Women mental Test for Gender Differences in Beneficent
Don’t Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide. Behavior.” Economics Letters, 48(3–4): 287–92.
Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. Bolton, Gary E., and Axel Ockenfels. 2000. “ERC: A
Bajtelsmit, Vickie L., and Jack L. VanDerhei. 1997. Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition.”
“Risk Aversion and Pension Investment Choices.” American Economic Review, 90(1): 166–93.
In Positioning Pensions for the Twenty-First Cen- Born, Marise, Nico Bleichrodt, and Henk van der
tury, ed. Michael S. Gordon, Olivia S. Mitchell, and Flier. 1987. “Cross-Cultural Comparison of Sex-
Marc M. Twinney, 45–66. Philadelphia: University Related Differences on Intelligence Tests: A Meta-
of Pennsylvania Press. analysis.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
Bateman, A. J. 1948. “Intra-sexual Selection in Droso- 18(3): 283–314.
phila.” Heredity, 2: 349–68. Bowles, Hannah Riley, Linda Babcock, and Lei Lai.
Bateup, Helen S., Alan Booth, Elizabeth A. Shirt- 2007. “Social Incentives for Gender Differences in
cliff, and Douglas A. Granger. 2002. “Testosterone, the Propensity to Initiate Negotiations: Sometimes
Cortisol, and Women’s Competition.” Evolution and It Does Hurt to Ask.” Organizational Behavior and
Human Behavior, 23(3): 181–92. Human Decision Processes, 103(1): 84–103.
Becker, Gary S. 1965. Human Capital: A Theoretical Bowles, Hannah Riley, Linda Babcock, and Kath-
and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to leen L. McGinn. 2005. “Constraints and Triggers:
Education. New York: National Bureau of Economic Situational Mechanics of Gender in Negotiation.”
Research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6):
Becker, Gary S. 1974. “A Theory of Social Interactions.” 951–65.
Journal of Political Economy, 82(6): 1063–93. Brody, Leslie R. 1993. “On Understanding Gender
470 Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XLVII (June 2009)

Differences in the Expression of Emotion.” In and Culture: International Experimental Evidence

Human Feelings: Explorations in Affect Develop- from Trust Games.” American Economic Review,
ment and Meaning, ed. Steven L. Ablon, Daniel 89(2): 386–91.
Brown, Edward J. Khantzian, and John E. Mack, Croson, Rachel, Melanie Marks, and Jessica Snyder.
87-121. Hillsdale, N.J.: Analytic Press. 2008. “Groups Work for Women: Gender and Group
Brown-Kruse, Jamie, and David Hummels. 1993. Identity in Social Dilemmas.” Negotiation Journal,
“Gender Effects in Laboratory Public Goods Con- 24(4): 411–27.
tribution: Do Individuals Put Their Money Where Darwin, Charles. 1871. The Descent of Man, and Selec-
Their Mouth Is?” Journal of Economic Behavior tion in Relation to Sex. London: John Murray.
and Organization, 22(3): 255–67. Datta Gupta, Nabanita, Anders Poulsen, and Marie-
Buchan, Nancy R., Rachel Croson, and Sara J. Sol- Claire Villeval. 2005. “Male and Female Competi-
nick. 2008. “Trust and Gender: An Examination tive Behavior: Experimental Evidence.” Institute for
of Behavior and Beliefs in the Investment Game.” the Study of Labor Discussion Paper 1833.
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Dawes, Robyn M., Jeanne McTavish, and Harriet Shak-
68(3–4): 466–76. lee. 1977. “Behavior, Communication, and Assump-
Byrnes, James P., David C. Miller, and William D. tions about Other People’s Behavior in a Commons
Schafer. 1999. “Gender Differences in Risk-Taking: Dilemma Situation.” Journal of Personality and
A Meta-analysis.” Psychological Bulletin, 125(3): Social Psychology, 35(1): 1–11.
367–83. Deaux, Kay, and Elizabeth Farris. 1977. “Attributing
Cadsby, Charles Bram, Yasuyo Hamaguchi, Toshiji Causes for One’s Own Performance: The Effects of
Kawagoe, Elizabeth Maynes, and Fei Song. 2007. Sex, Norms, and Outcome.” Journal of Research in
“Cross-National Gender Differences in Behavior Personality, 11(1): 59–72.
in a Threshold Public Goods Game: Japan versus Dickinson, David L., and Jill Tiefenthaler. 2002.
Canada.” Journal of Economic Psychology, 28(2): “What Is Fair? Experimental Evidence.” Southern
242–60. Economic Journal, 69(2): 414–28.
Cadsby, Charles Bram, and Elizabeth Maynes. 1998. Dindia, Kathryn, and Michael Allen. 1992. “Sex Dif-
“Gender and Free Riding in a Threshold Public ferences in Self-Disclosure: A Meta-analysis.” Psy-
Goods Game: Experimental Evidence.” Journal chological Bulletin, 112(1): 106–24.
of Economic Behavior and Organization, 34(4): Dohmen, Thomas, Armin Falk, David Huffman, Uwe
603–20. Sunde, Jürgen Schupp, and Gert G. Wagner. 2005.
Camerer, Colin F., and Keith Weigelt. 1988. “Experi- “Individual Risk Attitudes: New Evidence from a
mental Tests of a Sequential Equilibrium Reputation Large, Representative, Experimentally-Validated
Model.” Econometrica, 56(1): 1–36. Survey.” Institute for the Study of Labor Discussion
Cason, Timothy N., and Vai-Lam Mui. 1997. “A Labo- Paper 1730.
ratory Study of Group Polarisation in the Team Dic- Doty, Richard L., and Colin Silverthorne. 1975. “Influ-
tator Game.” Economic Journal, 107(444): 1465–83. ence of Menstrual Cycle on Volunteering Behav-
Charness, Gary, and Matthew Rabin. 2002. “Under- iour.” Nature, 254(5496): 139–40.
standing Social Preferences with Simple Tests.” Dreber, Anna, and Moshe Hoffman. 2007. “Portfolio
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(3): 817–69. Selection in Utero.” Unpublished.
Chaudhuri, Ananish, and Lata Gangadharan. 2007. Dreber, Anna, and Magnus Johannesson. 2008. “Gen-
“An Experimental Analysis of Trust and Trustworthi- der Differences in Deception.” Economics Letters,
ness.” Southern Economic Journal, 73(4): 959–85. 99(1): 197–99.
Chen, Yan, Peter Katuscak, and Emre Ozdenoren. Dufwenberg, Martin, and Georg Kirchsteiger. 2004.
2009. “Why Can’t a Woman Bid More Like a Man?” “A Theory of Sequential Reciprocity.” Games and
Unpublished. Economic Behavior, 47(2): 268–98.
Chermak, Janie M., and Kate Krause. 2002. “Individ- Dufwenberg, Martin, and Astri Muren. 2006a. “Gen-
ual Response, Information, and Intergenerational der Composition in Teams.” Journal of Economic
Common Pool Problems.” Journal of Environmental Behavior and Organization, 61(1): 50–54.
Economics and Management, 43(1): 47–70. Dufwenberg, Martin, and Astri Muren. 2006b. “Gen-
Clark, Kenneth, and Martin Sefton. 2001. “The erosity, Anonymity, Gender.” Journal of Economic
Sequential Prisoner’s Dilemma: Evidence on Recip- Behavior and Organization, 61(1): 42–49.
rocation.” Economic Journal, 111(468): 51–68. Dwyer, Peggy D., James H. Gilkeson, and John A. List.
Colarelli, Stephen, Jennifer L. Spranger, and M. 2002. “Gender Differences in Revealed Risk Taking:
Regina Hechanova. 2006. “Women, Power, and Sex Evidence from Mutual Fund Investors.” Economics
Composition in Small Groups: An Evolutionary Per- Letters, 76(2): 151–58.
spective.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(2): Eagly, Alice H. 1995. “The Science and Politics of
163–84. Comparing Women and Men.” American Psycholo-
Cox, James C., and Cary A. Deck 2006. “When Are gist, 50(3): 145–58.
Women More Generous than Men?” Economic Eagly, Alice H., and Maureen Crowley. 1986. “Gender
Inquiry, 44(4): 587–98. and Helping Behavior: A Meta-analytic Review of
Croson, Rachel, and Nancy R. Buchan. 1999. “Gender the Social Psychological Literature.” Psychological
 Croson and Gneezy: Gender Differences in Preferences 471

Bulletin, 100(3): 283–308. Schubert. 2006. “Genders, Financial Risk, and Prob-
Eagly, Alice H., Steven J. Karau, and Mona G. Makhi- ability Weights.” Theory and Decesion, 60(2–3):
jani. 1995. “Gender and the Effectiveness of Lead- 283–313.
ers: A Meta-analysis.” Psychological Bulletin, 117(1): Feingold, Alan. 1994. “Gender Differences in Per-
125–45. sonality: A Meta-analysis.” Psychological Bulletin,
Eagly, Alice H., and Valerie J. Steffen. 1986. “Gender 116(3): 429–56.
and Aggressive Behavior: A Meta-analytic Review of Fershtman, Chaim, and Uri Gneezy. 2001. “Discrimi-
the Social Psychological Literature.” Psychological nation in a Segmented Society: An Experimental
Bulletin, 100(3): 309–30. Approach.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1):
Eagly, Alice H., and Wendy Wood. 1991. “Explaining 351–77.
Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Meta-analytic Finucane, Melissa L., Paul Slovic, C. K. Mertz, James
Perspective.” Personality and Social Psychology Flynn, and Theresa A. Satterfield. 2000. “Gender,
Bulletin, 17(3): 306–15. Race, and Perceived Risk: The ‘White Male’ Effect.”
Eckel, Catherine C., and Philip J. Grossman. 1996. Health, Risk and Society, 2(2): 159–72.
“The Relative Price of Fairness: Gender Differ- Forsythe, Robert, Joel L. Horowitz, N. E. Savin, and
ences in a Punishment Game.” Journal of Economic Martin Sefton. 1994. “Fairness in Simple Bargain-
Behavior and Organization, 30(2): 143–58. ing Experiments.” Games and Economic Behavior,
Eckel, Catherine C., and Philip J. Grossman. 1998. 6(3): 347–69.
“Are Women Less Selfish than Men? Evidence from Frank, Robert H., Thomas Gilovich, and Dennis T.
Dictator Experiments.” Economic Journal, 108(448): Regan. 1993. “Does Studying Economics Inhibit
726–35. Cooperation?” Journal of Economic Perspectives,
Eckel, Catherine C., and Philip J. Grossman. 2001. 7(2): 159–71.
“Chivalry and Solidarity in Ultimatum Games.” Eco- Fujita, Frank, Ed Diener, and Ed Sandvik. 1991. “Gen-
nomic Inquiry, 39(2): 171–88. der Differences in Negative Affect and Well-Being:
Eckel, Catherine C., and Philip J. Grossman. 2002. The Case for Emotional Intensity.” Journal of Per-
“Sex Differences and Statistical Stereotyping in Atti- sonality and Social Psychology, 61(3): 427–34.
tudes toward Financial Risk.” Evolution and Human Gachter, Simon, and Eva Poen. 2004. “Are Females
Behavior, 23(4): 281–95. More Cooperative than Males?” Unpublished.
Eckel, Catherine C., and Philip J. Grossman. 2008a. Garbarino, Ellen, and Robert Slonim. 2009. “The
“Differences in the Economic Decisions of Men and Robustness of Trust and Reciprocity across a Het-
Women: Experimental Evidence.” In Handbook of erogeneous U.S. Population.” Journal of Economic
Experimental Economics Results, Volume 1, ed. Behavior and Organization, 69(3): 226–40.
Charles Plott and Vernon Smith, 509–19. New York: Gerhart, Barry, and Sara Rynes. 1991. “Determinants
Elsevier. and Consequences of Salary Negotiations by Male
Eckel, Catherine C., and Philip J. Grossman. 2008b. and Female MBA Graduates.” Journal of Applied
“Forecasting Risk Attitudes: An Experimental Study Psychology, 76(2): 256–62.
Using Actual and Forecast Gamble Choices.” Jour- Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice: Psychologi-
nal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 68(1): cal Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge
1–17. and London: Harvard University Press.
Eckel, Catherine C., and Philip J. Grossman. 2008c. Gneezy, Uri. 2005. “Deception: The Role of Con-
“Men, Women and Risk Aversion: Experimental sequences.” American Economic Review, 95(1):
Evidence.” In Handbook of Experimental Econom- 384–94.
ics Results, Volume 1, ed. Charles Plott and Vernon Gneezy, Uri, Kenneth L. Leonard, and John A. List.
Smith, 1061–73. New York Elsevier. Forthcoming. “Gender Differences in Competition:
Eckel, Catherine C., and Rick K. Wilson. 2004a. “Con- The Role of Socialization.” Econometrica.
ditional Trust: Sex, Race and Facial Expressions in a Gneezy, Uri, Muriel Niederle, and Aldo Rustichini.
Trust Game.” Unpublished. 2003. “Performance in Competitive Environments:
Eckel, Catherine C., and Rick K. Wilson. 2004b. Gender Differences.” Quarterly Journal of Econom-
“Whom to Trust? Choice of Partner in a Trust ics, 118(3): 1049–74.
Game.” Unpublished. Gneezy, Uri, and Aldo Rustichini. 2004a. “Executives
Estes, Ralph, and Jinoos Hosseini. 1988. “The Gender versus Teachers.” Unpublished.
Gap on Wall Street: An Empirical Analysis of Con- Gneezy, Uri, and Aldo Rustichini. 2004b. “Gender and
fidence in Investment Decision Making.” Journal of Competition at a Young Age.” American Economic
Psychology, 122(6): 577–90. Review, 94(2): 377–81.
Falk, Armin, and Urs Fischbacher. 2006. “A Theory of Grossman, Michele, and Wendy Wood. 1993. “Sex Dif-
Reciprocity.” Games and Economic Behavior, 54(2): ferences in Intensity of Emotional Experience: A
293–315. Social Role Interpretation.” Journal of Personality
Fehr, Ernst, and Klaus M. Schmidt. 1999. “A Theory of and Social Psychology, 65(5): 1010–22.
Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation.” Quarterly Guth, Werner, Carsten Schmidt, and Matthias Sutter.
Journal of Economics, 114(3): 817–68. 2007. “Bargaining Outside the Lab—A Newspaper
Fehr-Duda, Helga, Manuele de Gennaro, and Renate Experiment of a Three-Person Ultimatum Game.”
472 Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XLVII (June 2009)

Economic Journal, 117(518): 449–69. Trust and Reciprocity.” http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/

Guth, Werner, Rolf Schmittberger, and Bernd econ/mceel/papers/TrustKMNS.pdf.
Schwarze. 1982. “An Experimental Analysis of Ulti- Karau, Steven J., and Kipling D. Williams. 1993. “Social
matum Bargaining.” Journal of Economic Behavior Loafing: A Meta-analytic Review and Theoretical
and Organization, 3(4): 367–88. Integration.” Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
Gysler, Matthias, Jamie Brown-Kruse, and Renate chology, 65(4): 681–706.
Schubert. 2002. “Ambiguity and Gender Differ- Knight, Frank H. 1921. Risk, Uncertainty and Profit.
ences in Financial Decision Making: An Experi- Boston: Hart, Schaffner and Marx; Boston and New
mental Examination of Competence and Confidence York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Effects.” Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Cen- Kray, Laura J., Adam D. Galinsky, and Leigh Thomp-
ter of Economic Research Working Paper 02-23. son. 2002. “Reversing the Gender Gap in Negotia-
Harbaugh, William T., Kate Krause, and Steven G. tions: An Exploration of Stereotype Regeneration.”
Liday. 2002. “Bargaining by Children.” University Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
of Oregon Economics Department Working Paper cesses, 87(2): 386–410.
2002-4. Kray, Laura J., Leigh Thompson, and Adam D. Gal-
Harshman, R. A., and A. Paivio. 1987. “‘Paradoxical’ insky. 2001. “Battle of the Sexes: Gender Stereo-
Sex Differences in Self-Reported Imagery.” Cana- type Confirmation and Reactance in Negotiations.”
dian Journal of Psychology, 41: 287–302. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6):
Hartog, Joop, Ada Ferrer-i-Carbonell, and Nicole 942–58.
Jonker. 2002. “Linking Measured Risk Aversion to Kreps, David M. 1990. “Corporate Culture and Eco-
Individual Characteristics.” Kyklos, 55(1): 3–26. nomic Theory.” In Perspectives on Positive Political
Hinz, Richard P., David D. McCarthy, and John A. Economy, ed. James E. Alt and Kenneth A. Shep-
Turner. 1997. “Are Women Conservative Inves- sle, 90–143. Cambridge; New York and Melbourne:
tors? Gender Differences in Participant-Directed Cambridge University Press.
Pension Investments.” In Positioning Pensions for Lerner, Jennifer S., Roxana M. Gonzalez, Deborah
the Twenty-First Century, ed. Michael S. Gordon, A. Small, and Baruch Fischhoff. 2003. “Effects of
Olivia S. Mitchell and Marc M. Twinney, 91–103. Fear and Anger on Perceived Risks of Terrorism: A
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. National Field Experiment.” Psychological Science,
Holm, Hakan J. 2000. “Gender-Based Focal Points.” 14(2): 144–50.
Games and Economic Behavior, 32(2): 292–314. Levin, I. P., M. A. Snyder, and D. P. Chapman. 1988.
Holt, Charles A., and Susan K. Laury. 2002. “Risk “The Interaction of Experimental and Situational
Aversion and Incentive Effects.” American Eco- Factors and Gender in a Simulated Ricky Deci-
nomic Review, 92(5): 1644–55. sion-Making Task.” Journal of Psychology, 122(2):
Houser, Daniel, and Daniel Schunk. 2007. “Fairness, 173–81.
Competition and Gender: Evidence from German Levitt, Steven D., and John A. List. 2007. “What Do
Schoolchildren.” Unpublished. Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Prefer-
Hyde, Janet S., Elizabeth Fennema, and Susan J. ences Reveal About the Real World?” Journal of
Lamon. 1990. “Gender Differences in Mathematics Economic Perspectives, 21(2): 153–74.
Performance: A Meta-analysis.” Psychological Bul- Lichtenstein, Sarah, Baruch Fischhoff, and Lawrence
letin, 107(2): 139–55. D. Phillips. 1982. “Calibration of Probabilities: The
Innocenti, Alessandro, and Maria Grazia Pazienza. State of the Art to 1980.” In Judgment under Uncer-
2006. “Altruism and Gender in the Trust Game.” tainty: Heuristics and Biases, ed. Daniel Kahneman,
University of Sienna Department of Economics Paul Slovic, and Amos Tversky, 306–34. Cambridge
Working Paper 5/2006. and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jianakoplos, Nancy Ammon, and Alexandra Bernasek. List, John A. 2006. “Field Experiments: A Bridge
1998. “Are Women More Risk Averse?” Economic between Lab and Naturally Occurring Data.”
Inquiry, 36(4): 620–30. Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 6(2),
Johnson, Blair T., and Alice H. Eagly. 1989. “Effects Article 8.
of Involvement on Persuasion: A Meta-analysis.” Psy- Loewenstein, George F., Elke U. Weber, Christopher
chological Bulletin, 106(2): 290–314. K. Hsee, and Ned Welch. 2001. “Risk as Feelings.”
Johnson, J. E. V., and P. L. Powell. 1994. “Decision Psychological Bulletin, 127(2): 267–86.
Making, Risk and Gender: Are Managers Difffer- Lundeberg, Mary A., Paul W. Fox, and Judith Punc-
ent?” British Journal of Management, 5(2): 123–38. cohar. 1994. “Highly Confident but Wrong: Gender
Kahn, Arnold, Joe Hottes, and William L. Davis. 1971. Differences and Similarities in Confidence Judg-
“Cooperation and Optimal Responding in the Pris- ments.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1):
oner’s Dilemma Game: Effects of Sex and Physical 114–21.
Attractiveness.” Journal of Personality and Social Mack, David, Paula N. Auburn, and George P. Knight.
Psychology, 17(3): 267–79. 1971. “Sex Role Identification and Behavior in a
Kanagaretnam, Kiridaran, Stuart Mestelman, Khalid Reiterated Prisoner’s Dilemma Game.” Psychonomic
Nainar, and Mohamed Shehata. 2006. “The Impact Science, 24: 280–82.
of Sex, Value Orientations and Risk Attitudes on Manning, John T., and Rogan P. Taylor. 2001. “Second
 Croson and Gneezy: Gender Differences in Preferences 473

to Fourth Digit Ratio and Male Ability in Sport: Study on Gender Differences.” Economics Letters,
Implications for Sexual Selection in Humans.” Evo- 99(3): 494–97.
lution and Human Behavior, 22(1): 61–69. Seguino, Stephanie, Thomas Stevens, and Mark A.
Marwell, Gerald, and Ruth E. Ames. 1981. “Econo- Lutz. 1996. “Gender and Cooperative Behavior:
mists Free Ride, Does Anyone Else?: Experiments Economic Man Rides Alone.” Feminist Economics,
on the Provision of Public Goods, IV.” Journal of 2(1): 1–21.
Public Economics, 15(3): 295–310. Sell, Jane, W. I. Griffith, and Rick K. Wilson. 1993.
Master, Robert, and Robert Meier. 1988. “Sex Differ- “Are Women More Cooperative than Men in Social
ences and Risk Taking Propensity of Entrepreneurs.” Dilemmas?” Social Psychology Quarterly, 56(3):
Journal of Small Business Management, 26: 31–35. 211–22.
McIntyre, Matthew H. 2006. “The Use of Digit Ratios Sell, Jane, and Rick K. Wilson. 1991. “Levels of Infor-
as Markers for Perinatal Androgen Action.” Repro- mation and Contributions to Public Goods.” Social
ductive Biology and Endocronology, 4: 10. Forces, 70(1): 107–24.
Mellström, Carl, and Magnus Johannesson. 2008. Selten, Reinhard, and Axel Ockenfels. 1998. “An
“Crowding Out in Blood Donation: Was Titmuss Experimental Solidarity Game.” Journal of Eco-
Right?” http://www.ne.su.se/research/enter/pdf/ nomic Behavior and Organization, 34(4): 517–39.
johannesson.pdf. Sibley, S., S. Senn, and A. Epanchin. 1968. “Race and
Migheli, Matteo. 2007. “Trust, Gender, and Social Sex of Adolescents and Cooperation in a Mixed-
Capital: Experimental Evidence from Three West- Motive Game.” Psychonomic Science, 13: 123–24.
ern European Countries.” Unpublished. Slonim, Robert. 2006. “Gender Selection Discrimina-
Mui, Vai-Lam. 1995. “The Economics of Envy.” Jour- tion: Evidence from a Trust Game.” http://wsom-
nal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 26(3): faculty.cwru.edu/slonim/Research%20August%20
311–36. 2005/Selection%20Discrimination%20Revision%20
Neu, Joyce, John L. Graham, and Mary C. Gilly. 1988. Slonim%20Sept%2027.pdf.
“The Influence of Gender on Behaviors and Out- Slovic, Paul, Melissa L. Finucane, Ellen Peters, and
comes in a Retail Buyer–Seller Negotiation Simula- Donald G. MacGregor. 2002. “The Affect Heuris-
tion.” Journal of Retailing, 64(4): 427–51. tic.” In Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of
Niederle, Muriel, and Lise Vesterlund. 2007. “Do Intuitive Judgment, ed. Thomas Gilovich, Dale Grif-
Women Shy Away from Competition? Do Men Com- fin, and Daniel Kahneman, 397–420. Cambridge
pete Too Much?” Quarterly Journal of Economics, and New York: Cambridge University Press.
122(3): 1067–1101. Small, Deborah A., Michele Gelfand, Linda Babcock,
Orbell, John, Robyn M. Dawes, and Peregrine and Hilary Gettman. 2007. “Who Goes to the Bar-
Schwartz-Shea. 1994. “Trust, Social Categories, and gaining Table? The Influence of Gender and Fram-
Individuals: The Case of Gender.” Motivation and ing on the Initiation of Negotiation.” Journal of
Emotion, 18(2): 109–28. Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4): 600–613.
Ortmann, Andreas, and Lisa K. Tichy. 1999. “Gen- Snijders, Chris, and Gideon Keren. 2001. “Do You
der Differences in the Laboratory: Evidence from Trust? Whom Do You Trust? When Do You Trust?”
Prisoner’s Dilemma Games.” Journal of Economic Advances in Group Processes, 18: 129–60.
Behavior and Organization, 39(3): 327–39. Soll, Jack B., and Joshua Klayman. 2004. “Overconfi-
Powell, Melanie, and David Ansic. 1997. “Gender Dif- dence in Interval Estimates.” Journal of Experimen-
ferences in Risk Behaviour in Financial Decision- tal Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
Making: An Experimental Analysis.” Journal of 30(2): 299–314.
Economic Psychology, 18(6): 605–28. Solnick, Sara J. 2001. “Gender Differences in the Ulti-
Rabin, Matthew. 1993. “Incorporating Fairness into matum Game.” Economic Inquiry, 39(2): 189–200.
Game Theory and Economics.” American Economic Solow, John L., and Nicole Kirkwood. 2002. “Group
Review, 83(5): 1281–1302. Identity and Gender in Public Goods Experiments.”
Rapoport, Anatol, and Albert M. Chammah. 1965. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,
“Sex Differences in Factors Contributing to the 48(4): 403–12.
Level of Cooperation in the Prisoner’s Dilemma Stuhlmacher, Alice F., and Amy E. Walters. 1999. “Gen-
Game.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- der Differences in Negotiation Outcome: A Meta-
ogy, 2(6): 831–38. analysis.” Personnel Psychology, 52(3): 653–77.
Rottenstreich, Yuval, and Christopher K. Hsee. 2001. Sunden, Annika E., and Brian J. Surette. 1998. “Gen-
“Money, Kisses, and Electric Shocks: On the Affec- der Differences in the Allocation of Assets in Retire-
tive Psychology of Risk.” Psychological Science, ment Savings Plans.” American Economic Review,
12(3): 185–90. 88(2): 207–11.
Schubert, Renate, Martin Brown, Matthias Gysler, and Tanaka, Tomomi, Colin F. Camerer, and Quang
Hans Wolfgang Brachinger. 1999. “Financial Deci- Nguyen. Forthcoming. “Risk and Time Preferences:
sion-Making: Are Women Really More Risk-Averse?” Experimental and Household Survey Data from
American Economic Review, 89(2): 381–85. Vietnam.” American Economic Review.
Schwieren, Christiane, and Matthias Sutter. 2008. Tedeschi, J. T., D. Hiester, and J. Gahagan. 1969.
“Trust in Cooperation or Ability? An Experimental “Trust and the Prisoner’s Dilemma Game.” Journal
474 Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XLVII (June 2009)

of Social Psychology, 79(40): 43–50. in Tournament Competition.” Journal of Socio-Eco-

Trivers, Robert L. 1972. “Parental Investment and Sex- nomics, 34(6): 834–49.
ual Selection.” In Sexual Selection and the Descent Walters, Amy E., Alice F. Stuhlmacher, and Lia L.
of Man, ed. Bernard Campbell, 136–79. Chicago: Meyer. 1998. “Gender and Negotiator Competitive-
Aldine. ness: A Meta-analysis.” Organizational Behavior
Van Huyck, John B., Raymond C. Battalio, and Mary and Human Decision Processes, 76(1): 1–29.
F. Walters. 1995. “Commitment versus Discretion in Womak, D. F. 1987. “Cooperative Behavior by Female
the Peasant–Dictator Game.” Games and Economic Negotiators: Experts or Masochists?” In Advances in
Behavior, 10(1): 143–70. Gender Communication Research, ed. L. B. Nadler,
Vandegrift, Donald, and Paul Brown. 2005. “Gender M. K. Nadler, and W. R. Mancillas, 219–40. New
Differences in the Use of High-Variance Strategies York: University Press of America.
This article has been cited by:

1. Matthias Sutter, Claudia Zoller, Daniela Glätzle-Rützler. 2019. Economic behavior of children and
adolescents – A first survey of experimental economics results. European Economic Review 111, 98-121.
[Crossref]
2. Utteeyo Dasgupta, Subha Mani, Smriti Sharma, Saurabh Singhal. 2019. Can gender differences in
distributional preferences explain gender gaps in competition?. Journal of Economic Psychology 70,
1-11. [Crossref]
3. Samuel Ampaw, Edward Nketiah-Amponsah, Nkechi Srodah Owoo. 2018. Gender perspective on life
insurance demand in Ghana. International Journal of Social Economics 45:12, 1631-1646. [Crossref]
4. Kohei Suzuki, Claudia N. Avellaneda. 2018. Women and risk-taking behaviour in local public finance.
Public Management Review 20:12, 1741-1767. [Crossref]
5. Antoine Nebout, Marie Cavillon, Bruno Ventelou. 2018. Comparing GPs’ risk attitudes for their own
health and for their patients’ : a troubling discrepancy?. BMC Health Services Research 18:1. . [Crossref]
6. Alexander Lischke, Anett Mau-Moeller, Robert Jacksteit, Rike Pahnke, Alfons O. Hamm, Matthias
Weippert. 2018. Heart rate variability is associated with social value orientation in males but not
females. Scientific Reports 8:1. . [Crossref]
7. Jörg Mahlich, Piyameth Dilokthornsakul, Rosarin Sruamsiri, Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk. 2018.
Cultural beliefs, utility values, and health technology assessment. Cost Effectiveness and Resource
Allocation 16:1. . [Crossref]
8. Morhaf Al Achkar, Seema Kengeri-Srikantiah, Biniyam M. Yamane, Jomil Villasmil, Michael E.
Busha, Kevin B. Gebke. 2018. Billing by residents and attending physicians in family medicine: the
effects of the provider, patient, and visit factors. BMC Medical Education 18:1. . [Crossref]
9. Astin C. Cornwall, Kaileigh A. Byrne, Darrell A. Worthy. 2018. Gender differences in preference
for reward frequency versus reward magnitude in decision-making under uncertainty. Personality and
Individual Differences 135, 40-44. [Crossref]
10. Greer K. Gosnell. 2018. Communicating Resourcefully: A Natural Field Experiment on
Environmental Framing and Cognitive Dissonance in Going Paperless. Ecological Economics 154,
128-144. [Crossref]
11. Álmos Telegdy. 2018. Public wage spillovers: The role of individual characteristics and employer wage
policies. Labour Economics 55, 116-129. [Crossref]
12. Anne Boschini, Anna Dreber, Emma von Essen, Astri Muren, Eva Ranehill. 2018. Gender and
altruism in a random sample. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 77, 72-77. [Crossref]
13. Billur Aksoy, Catherine Eckel, Rick Wilson. 2018. Can I Rely on You?. Games 9:4, 81. [Crossref]
14. E. Matthew Ritter, Matthew Lineberry, Daniel A. Hashimoto, Denise Gee, Angela A. Guzzetta,
Daniel J. Scott, Aimee K. Gardner. 2018. Simulation-based mastery learning significantly reduces
gender differences on the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery performance exam. Surgical Endoscopy
32:12, 5006-5011. [Crossref]
15. Ashok Thomas, Luca Spataro. 2018. Financial Literacy, Human Capital and Stock Market
Participation in Europe. Journal of Family and Economic Issues 39:4, 532-550. [Crossref]
16. Steffen Andersen, Seda Ertac, Uri Gneezy, John A. List, Sandra Maximiano. 2018. On the cultural
basis of gender differences in negotiation. Experimental Economics 21:4, 757-778. [Crossref]
17. David Clingingsmith, Roman M. Sheremeta. 2018. Status and the demand for visible goods:
experimental evidence on conspicuous consumption. Experimental Economics 21:4, 877-904.
[Crossref]
18. Timo Goeschl, Sara Kettner, Johannes Lohse, Christiane Schwieren. 2018. From Social Information
to Social Norms: Evidence from Two Experiments on Donation Behaviour. Games 9:4, 91. [Crossref]
19. Chris W. Bonneau, Kristin Kanthak. 2018. Stronger together: political ambition and the presentation
of women running for office. Politics, Groups, and Identities 1-19. [Crossref]
20. Wojciech Przychodzen, Fernando Gómez-Bezares, Justyna Przychodzen. 2018. Green information
technologies practices and financial performance – The empirical evidence from German publicly
traded companies. Journal of Cleaner Production 201, 570-579. [Crossref]
21. Armin Falk, Anke Becker, Thomas Dohmen, Benjamin Enke, David Huffman, Uwe Sunde. 2018.
Global Evidence on Economic Preferences*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 133:4, 1645-1692.
[Crossref]
22. Jianxin Wang, Daniel Houser, Hui Xu. 2018. Culture, gender and asset prices: Experimental evidence
from the U.S. and China. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 155, 253-287. [Crossref]
23. Fabian Paetzel, Rupert Sausgruber. 2018. Cognitive ability and in-group bias: An experimental study.
Journal of Public Economics 167, 280-292. [Crossref]
24. Jonathan de Quidt, Johannes Haushofer, Christopher Roth. 2018. Measuring and Bounding
Experimenter Demand. American Economic Review 108:11, 3266-3302. [Abstract] [View PDF article]
[PDF with links]
25. Leonardo Becchetti, Lorenzo Semplici, Michele Tridente. 2018. The Taste for Corporate
Responsibility: Heterogeneity and Consensus Around CR Indicators. Social Indicators Research 140:1,
393-433. [Crossref]
26. Zibei Chen, James C. Garand. 2018. On the Gender Gap in Financial Knowledge: Decomposing the
Effects of Don't Know and Incorrect Responses*. Social Science Quarterly 99:5, 1551-1571. [Crossref]
27. SeEun Jung, Radu Vranceanu. 2018. Competitive Compensation and Subjective Well-being: The
Effect of Culture and Gender. Journal of Economic Psychology . [Crossref]
28. David Klinowski. 2018. Gender differences in giving in the Dictator Game: the role of reluctant
altruism. Journal of the Economic Science Association 77. . [Crossref]
29. Ismael Rodriguez-Lara. 2018. No evidence of inequality aversion in the investment game. PLOS ONE
13:10, e0204392. [Crossref]
30. Kene Boun My, Nicolas Lampach, Mathieu Lefebvre, Jacopo Magnani. 2018. Effects of gain-loss
frames on advantageous inequality aversion. Journal of the Economic Science Association 101. . [Crossref]
31. Ziang Zou, Yuqing Wu, Qi Zhu, Shenggang Yang. 2018. Do Female Executives Prioritize Corporate
Social Responsibility?. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade 54:13, 2965-2981. [Crossref]
32. Zeev Winstok, Michael Weinberg. 2018. From Posttrauma to Gender and Back: A Gender
Motivation Theory-Explanation of Gender Differences in Trauma Exposure, Symptoms, Diagnosis,
and Implications. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma 27:9, 959-982. [Crossref]
33. Tim Rosengart, Bernhard Hirsch, Christian Nitzl. 2018. The effects of legal versus business education
on decision making in public administrations with a Weberian tradition. Business Research 42. .
[Crossref]
34. Gary E. Bolton, Yefen Chen. Other-regarding Behavior 199-235. [Crossref]
35. Armin Falk, Johannes Hermle. 2018. Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic
development and gender equality. Science 362:6412, eaas9899. [Crossref]
36. Angela R. Dorrough, Andreas Glöckner. 2018. A cross-national analysis of sex differences in prisoner's
dilemma games. British Journal of Social Psychology 103. . [Crossref]
37. Ylva Baeckström, Jo Silvester, Rachel A. J. Pownall. 2018. Millionaire investors: financial advisors,
attribution theory and gender differences. The European Journal of Finance 24:15, 1333-1349.
[Crossref]
38. Ernesto Reuben, Krisztina Timko. 2018. On the effectiveness of elected male and female leaders and
team coordination. Journal of the Economic Science Association 40. . [Crossref]
39. Ferdinand M. Vieider, Peter Martinsson, Pham Khanh Nam, Nghi Truong. 2018. Risk preferences
and development revisited. Theory and Decision 101. . [Crossref]
40. Masayuki Morikawa. 2018. Policy Uncertainty and Saving Attitude: Evidence from a Survey on
Consumers. Journal of Consumer Affairs 2. . [Crossref]
41. Adnène Sghaier, Taher Hamza. 2018. Does boardroom gender diversity affect the risk profile of
acquiring banks?. Managerial Finance 44:10, 1174-1199. [Crossref]
42. Emily J. Hangen, Andrew J. Elliot, Jeremy P. Jamieson. 2018. Stress reappraisal during a mathematics
competition: testing effects on cardiovascular approach-oriented states and exploring the moderating
role of gender. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping 1, 1-14. [Crossref]
43. Atreya Chakraborty, Lucia Gao, Shahbaz Sheikh. 2018. Corporate governance and risk in cross-listed
and Canadian only companies. Management Decision 93. . [Crossref]
44. Shuwen Li, Xiangdong Qin, Daniel Houser. 2018. Revisiting gender differences in ultimatum
bargaining: experimental evidence from the US and China. Journal of the Economic Science Association
93. . [Crossref]
45. Patchimaporn Udomkun, John Ilukor, Jonathan Mockshell, Gaudiose Mujawamariya, Christopher
Okafor, Renee Bullock, Nsharwasi Léon Nabahungu, Bernard Vanlauwe. 2018. What are the key
factors influencing consumers’ preference and willingness to pay for meat products in Eastern DRC?.
Food Science & Nutrition 55. . [Crossref]
46. I-Chun Tsai. 2018. Investigating Gender Differences in Real Estate Trading Sentiments. The American
Economist 63:2, 187-214. [Crossref]
47. Fred Schroyen, Karl Ove Aarbu. 2018. Attitudes Towards Large Income Risk in Welfare States: An
International Comparison. Economica 85:340, 846-872. [Crossref]
48. Leonora Risse, Lisa Farrell, Tim R L Fry. 2018. Personality and pay: do gender gaps in confidence
explain gender gaps in wages?. Oxford Economic Papers 70:4, 919-949. [Crossref]
49. Bradley Heim, Ithai Lurie, Kosali Simon. 2018. Did the Affordable Care Act Young Adult Provision
Affect Labor Market Outcomes? Analysis Using Tax Data. ILR Review 71:5, 1154-1178. [Crossref]
50. Michael Jetter, Jay K. Walker. 2018. The gender of opponents: Explaining gender differences in
performance and risk-taking?. European Economic Review 109, 238-256. [Crossref]
51. Luigi Guiso, Aldo Rustichini. 2018. What drives women out of management? The joint role of
testosterone and culture. European Economic Review 109, 221-237. [Crossref]
52. Christopher J. Flinn, Petra E Todd, Weilong Zhang. 2018. Personality traits, intra-household
allocation and the gender wage gap. European Economic Review 109, 191-220. [Crossref]
53. Sumit Agarwal, Richard Green, Eric Rosenblatt, Vincent W. Yao, Jian Zhang. 2018. Gender difference
and intra-household economic power in mortgage signing order. Journal of Financial Intermediation
36, 86-100. [Crossref]
54. Giam Pietro Cipriani. 2018. Gender difference in willingness to guess after a failure. The Journal of
Economic Education 1-8. [Crossref]
55. Michael Baker, Kirsten Cornelson. 2018. Gender-Based Occupational Segregation and Sex Differences
in Sensory, Motor, and Spatial Aptitudes. Demography 55:5, 1749-1775. [Crossref]
56. Eva Ranehill, Niklas Zethraeus, Liselott Blomberg, Bo von Schoultz, Angelica Lindén Hirschberg,
Magnus Johannesson, Anna Dreber. 2018. Hormonal Contraceptives Do Not Impact Economic
Preferences: Evidence from a Randomized Trial. Management Science 64:10, 4515-4532. [Crossref]
57. Kavitha Ranganathan. 2018. DOES GLOBAL SHAPES OF UTILITY FUNCTIONS MATTER
FOR INVESTMENT DECISIONS?. Bulletin of Economic Research 70:4, 341-361. [Crossref]
58. Juergen Bracht, Adam Zylbersztejn. 2018. Moral judgments, gender, and antisocial preferences: an
experimental study. Theory and Decision 85:3-4, 389-406. [Crossref]
59. Brice Corgnet, Cary Deck, Mark DeSantis, David Porter. 2018. Information (non)aggregation in
markets with costly signal acquisition. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 154, 286-320.
[Crossref]
60. Ann L. Owen, Judit Temesvary. 2018. CEO compensation, pay inequality, and the gender diversity
of bank board of directors. Finance Research Letters . [Crossref]
61. Ekaterina Shakina, Martin Angerer. 2018. Coordination and communication during bank runs.
Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance . [Crossref]
62. Jennifer Pate, Richard Fox. 2018. Getting past the gender gap in political ambition. Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization . [Crossref]
63. Nir Becker, Nurit Carmi. 2018. Changing trip behavior in a higher education institution: The role
of parking fees. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 19, 1-10. [Crossref]
64. Sule Alan, Seda Ertac. 2018. Mitigating the Gender Gap in the Willingness to Compete: Evidence
from a Randomized Field Experiment. Journal of the European Economic Association 126. . [Crossref]
65. Tracey Broome, Winston Moore, Philmore Alleyne. 2018. Financing constraints and the R&D
decision in the Caribbean. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 2, 1-23. [Crossref]
66. David Cuberes, Sadia Priyanka, Marc Teignier. 2018. The determinants of entrepreneurship gender
gaps: A cross-country analysis. Review of Development Economics 13. . [Crossref]
67. Volker Benndorf, Holger A. Rau, Christian Sölch. 2018. GENDER DIFFERENCES IN
MOTIVATIONAL CROWDING OUT OF WORK PERFORMANCE. Economic Inquiry 58. .
[Crossref]
68. Satish Kumar, Sweta Tomar, Deepak Verma. 2018. Women’s financial planning for retirement.
International Journal of Bank Marketing 7. . [Crossref]
69. Tae-Young Pak, Patryk Babiarz. 2018. Asset Allocation of Two-Person Households under Different
Longevity Expectations. Journal of Consumer Affairs 38. . [Crossref]
70. Nikolay Angelov, Per Johansson, Erica Lindahl. 2018. Sick of family responsibilities?. Empirical
Economics 63. . [Crossref]
71. Emel Filiz-Ozbay, John C. Ham, John H. Kagel, Erkut Y. Ozbay. 2018. The role of cognitive ability
and personality traits for men and women in gift exchange outcomes. Experimental Economics 21:3,
650-672. [Crossref]
72. David Scrogin. 2018. Risk preferences over simple and compound public lotteries. Economics Letters
170, 85-87. [Crossref]
73. Andreas Leibbrandt, Liang Choon Wang, Cordelia Foo. 2018. Gender Quotas, Competitions, and
Peer Review: Experimental Evidence on the Backlash Against Women. Management Science 64:8,
3501-3516. [Crossref]
74. Xiqian Cai, Jie Gong, Yi Lu, Songfa Zhong. 2018. Recover Overnight? Work Interruption and Worker
Productivity. Management Science 64:8, 3489-3500. [Crossref]
75. Natalia Candelo, Catherine Eckel. 2018. The 2D:4D ratio does not always correlate with economic
behavior: A field experiment with African-Americans. Economics & Human Biology 30, 172-181.
[Crossref]
76. Bing Jiang, C. Monica Capra. 2018. Are (active) entrepreneurs a different breed?. Managerial and
Decision Economics 39:6, 613-628. [Crossref]
77. Amos Nadler, Peiran Jiao, Cameron J. Johnson, Veronika Alexander, Paul J. Zak. 2018. The Bull
of Wall Street: Experimental Analysis of Testosterone and Asset Trading. Management Science 64:9,
4032-4051. [Crossref]
78. Matteo Assandri, Anna Maffioletti, Massimiliano Piacenza, Gilberto Turati. 2018. Risk Attitudes and
Preferences for Redistribution: New Evidence from the Lab. CESifo Economic Studies 64:3, 489-515.
[Crossref]
79. Jia Chen, Jiajun Jiang, Yu-jane Liu. 2018. Financial literacy and gender difference in loan performance.
Journal of Empirical Finance 48, 307-320. [Crossref]
80. Jie Chen, Woon Sau Leung, Kevin P. Evans. 2018. Female board representation, corporate innovation
and firm performance. Journal of Empirical Finance 48, 236-254. [Crossref]
81. Katharina Block, Antonya Marie Gonzalez, Toni Schmader, Andrew Scott Baron. 2018. Early Gender
Differences in Core Values Predict Anticipated Family Versus Career Orientation. Psychological Science
29:9, 1540-1547. [Crossref]
82. Elif E. Demiral, Johanna Mollerstrom. 2018. The entitlement effect in the ultimatum game – does
it even exist?. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization . [Crossref]
83. Takanori Tanaka. 2018. Gender diversity on Japanese corporate boards. Journal of the Japanese and
International Economies . [Crossref]
84. Sonia Vilches-Montero, Ameet Pandit, Renzo Bravo-Olavarria, Chih-Wei (Fred) Chao. 2018. What
loyal women (and men) want: The role of gender and loyalty program characteristics in driving store
loyalty. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 44, 64-70. [Crossref]
85. Yan Chen, Ming Jiang, Erin L. Krupka. 2018. Hunger and the gender gap. Experimental Economics
24. . [Crossref]
86. Xiaolan Yang, Yiyang Lin, Mei Gao, Xuejun Jin. 2018. Effect of Modulating Activity of DLPFC and
Gender on Search Behavior: A tDCS Experiment. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 12. . [Crossref]
 87. Mei Gao, Xiaolan Yang, Jinchuan Shi, Yiyang Lin, Shu Chen. 2018. Does Gender Make a Difference
in Deception? The Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Over Dorsolateral Prefrontal
Cortex. Frontiers in Psychology 9. . [Crossref]
88. Astrid Kause, Oliver Vitouch, Judith Glück. 2018. How selfish is a thirsty man? A pilot study
on comparing sharing behavior with primary and secondary rewards. PLOS ONE 13:8, e0201358.
[Crossref]
89. Antonio L. García-Izquierdo, Carlos Fernández-Méndez, Rubén Arrondo-García. 2018. Gender
Diversity on Boards of Directors and Remuneration Committees: The Influence on Listed Companies
in Spain. Frontiers in Psychology 9. . [Crossref]
90. Khaldoun AbouAssi, Zachary Bauer, Jocelyn M Johnston. 2018. Collaboration, Venus, and Mars:
The Gender Factor in Intersectoral Relations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
43. . [Crossref]
91. Nataliya Barasinska, Dorothea Schäfer. 2018. Gender role asymmetry and stock market participation –
evidence from four European household surveys. The European Journal of Finance 24:12, 1026-1046.
[Crossref]
92. Heba Abou-El-Sood. 2018. Corporate governance and risk taking: the role of board gender diversity.
Pacific Accounting Review 9. . [Crossref]
93. Katharina Block, Alyssa Croft, Toni Schmader. 2018. Worth Less?: Why Men (and Women) Devalue
Care-Oriented Careers. Frontiers in Psychology 9. . [Crossref]
94. Brian P. McCall, Elizabeth M. Starr. 2018. Effects of autism spectrum disorder on parental
employment in the United States: evidence from the National Health Interview Survey. Community,
Work & Family 21:4, 367-392. [Crossref]
95. Yann Algan, Nicole M. Fortin. Computer Gaming and the Gender Math Gap: Cross-Country Evidence
among Teenagers 183-228. [Crossref]
96. Hyun Ah Kim, Seok Woo Jeong. 2018. Gender diversity in employees and discretionary accruals:
the Korean evidence. International Journal of Accounting & Information Management 26:3, 362-383.
[Crossref]
97. Kazem Mochkabadi, Christine K. Volkmann. 2018. Equity crowdfunding: a systematic review of the
literature. Small Business Economics 18. . [Crossref]
98. Awa Sanou, Lenis Saweda O. Liverpool-Tasie, Robert Shupp. 2018. Eliciting Risk Attitudes in the
Field: Surveys or Experimental Methods? An Empirical Comparison in Rural Niger. The Journal of
Development Studies 54:8, 1450-1470. [Crossref]
99. Didier Ruedin, Majlinda Nesturi. 2018. Choosing Unauthorized Migration: Evidence from Return
Migrants. International Migration 56:4, 235-249. [Crossref]
100. Antonio Filippin, Francesca Gioia. 2018. Competition and subsequent risk-taking behaviour:
Heterogeneity across gender and outcomes. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 75,
84-94. [Crossref]
101. Jianbiao Li, Dahui Li, Qian Cao, Xiaofei Niu. 2018. The role of regret and disappointment in the
repurchase effect: Does gender matter?. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 75, 134-140.
[Crossref]
102. Richard Deaves, Brian Kluger, Jennifer Miele. 2018. An exploratory experimental analysis of path-
dependent investment behaviors. Journal of Economic Psychology 67, 47-65. [Crossref]
103. Cory J. Clark, Adam Shniderman, Jamie B. Luguri, Roy F. Baumeister, Peter H. Ditto. 2018. Are
morally good actions ever free?. Consciousness and Cognition 63, 161-182. [Crossref]
104. Pablo Brañas-Garza, Matteo M. Galizzi, Jeroen Nieboer. 2018. EXPERIMENTAL AND SELF-
REPORTED MEASURES OF RISK TAKING AND DIGIT RATIO (2D:4D): EVIDENCE
FROM A LARGE, SYSTEMATIC STUDY. International Economic Review 59:3, 1131-1157.
[Crossref]
105. Thekla Morgenroth, Cordelia Fine, Michelle K. Ryan, Anna E. Genat. 2018. Sex, Drugs, and Reckless
Driving. Social Psychological and Personality Science 9:6, 744-753. [Crossref]
106. Natalia Montinari, Michela Rancan. 2018. Risk taking on behalf of others: The role of social distance.
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 57:1, 81-109. [Crossref]
107. Alexander W. Cappelen, Roland Iwan Luttens, Erik Ø. Sørensen, Bertil Tungodden. 2018. Fairness
in Bankruptcies: An Experimental Study. Management Science . [Crossref]
108. Ross Brown, José Liñares-Zegarra, John O. S. Wilson. 2018. Sticking it on plastic: credit card finance
and small and medium-sized enterprises in the UK. Regional Studies 2, 1-14. [Crossref]
109. Nagore Iriberri, Pedro Rey-Biel. 2018. Competitive Pressure Widens the Gender Gap in Performance:
Evidence from a Two-stage Competition in Mathematics. The Economic Journal 127. . [Crossref]
110. Yi Xu. 2018. Generalized Trust and Financial Risk-Taking in China – A Contextual and Individual
Analysis. Frontiers in Psychology 9. . [Crossref]
111. Jasmin Joecks, Kerstin Pull, Katrin Scharfenkamp. 2018. Perceived roles of women directors
on supervisory boards: Insights from a qualitative study. German Journal of Human Resource
Management: Zeitschrift für Personalforschung 33, 239700221878392. [Crossref]
112. Smarandita Ceccato, Sara E. Kettner, Brigitte M. Kudielka, Christiane Schwieren, Andreas Voss. 2018.
Social preferences under chronic stress. PLOS ONE 13:7, e0199528. [Crossref]
113. Xiqian Cai, Yi Lu, Jessica Pan, Songfa Zhong. 2018. Gender Gap under Pressure: Evidence from
China’s National College Entrance Examination. The Review of Economics and Statistics 25. . [Crossref]
114. Leonardo Becchetti, Francesco Salustri, Vittorio Pelligra, Alejandra Vásquez. 2018. Gender differences
in socially responsible consumption. An experimental investigation. Applied Economics 50:33,
3630-3643. [Crossref]
115. Mahamadou Roufahi Tankari. Chapter 5. Gender parity and inorganic fertilizer technology adoption
in farm households: evidence from Niger 99-115. [Crossref]
116. Elizabeth Sheedy, Martin Lubojanski. 2018. Risk management behaviour in banking. Managerial
Finance 44:7, 902-918. [Crossref]
117. Y. Jane Zhang. 2018. Culture, Institutions and the Gender Gap in Competitive Inclination: Evidence
from the Communist Experiment in China. The Economic Journal 115. . [Crossref]
118. Frederick Wedzerai Nyakudya, Amon Simba, Michael Herrington. 2018. Entrepreneurship, gender
gap and developing economies: the case of post-apartheid South Africa. Journal of Small Business &
Entrepreneurship 30:4, 293-324. [Crossref]
119. Michael Becker-Peth, Ulrich W. Thonemann, Torsten Gully. 2018. A note on the risk aversion of
informed newsvendors. Journal of the Operational Research Society 69:7, 1135-1145. [Crossref]
120. N. Yiannakoulias, J.C. Darlington, A. Elshorbagy, B. Raja. 2018. Meta-analysis based predictions
of flood insurance and flood vulnerability patterns in Calgary, Alberta. Applied Geography 96, 41-50.
[Crossref]
121. Miriam Beblo, Luise Görges. 2018. On the nature of nurture. The malleability of gender differences
in work preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 151, 19-41. [Crossref]
122. Maria De Paola, Francesca Gioia, Vincenzo Scoppa. 2018. The adverse consequences of tournaments:
Evidence from a field experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 151, 1-18. [Crossref]
123. Angelo Baglioni, Luca Colombo, Giulio Piccirilli. 2018. On the Anatomy of Financial Literacy in
Italy. Economic Notes 47:2-3, 245-304. [Crossref]
124. Anastasia Peshkovskaya, Tatiana Babkina, Mikhail Myagkov. 2018. Social context reveals gender
differences in cooperative behavior. Journal of Bioeconomics 20:2, 213-225. [Crossref]
125. Frauke von Bieberstein, Jörg Schiller. 2018. Contract design and insurance fraud: an experimental
investigation. Review of Managerial Science 12:3, 711-736. [Crossref]
126. Thomas Buser, Lydia Geijtenbeek, Erik Plug. 2018. Sexual orientation, competitiveness and income.
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 151, 191-198. [Crossref]
127. Justin Esarey, Leslie A. Schwindt-Bayer. 2018. Women’s Representation, Accountability and
Corruption in Democracies. British Journal of Political Science 48:03, 659-690. [Crossref]
128. Andreas Fuchs, Katharina Richert. 2018. Development minister characteristics and aid giving.
European Journal of Political Economy 53, 186-204. [Crossref]
129. Tianxin Mao, Jian Yang, Taotao Ru, Qingwei Chen, Juyan Zhou, Haoyue Shi, Guofu Zhou. 2018.
Does red light induce people to be riskier? Exploring the colored light effect on the Balloon Analogue
Risk Task (BART). Journal of Environmental Psychology . [Crossref]
130. Alison C. Cullen, C. Leigh Anderson, Pierre Biscaye, Travis W. Reynolds. 2018. Variability in Cross-
Domain Risk Perception among Smallholder Farmers in Mali by Gender and Other Demographic and
Attitudinal Characteristics. Risk Analysis 38:7, 1361-1377. [Crossref]
131. Kerrie L. Unsworth, Darja Kragt, Amber Johnston-Billings. 2018. Am I a leader or a friend? How
leaders deal with pre-existing friendships. The Leadership Quarterly . [Crossref]
132. Omar Farooq, Harit Satt, Souhail Ramid. 2018. Gender difference and informal competition: evidence
from India. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 52. . [Crossref]
133. Yan Chen, Iman YeckehZaare, Ark Fangzhou Zhang. 2018. Real or bogus: Predicting susceptibility
to phishing with economic experiments. PLOS ONE 13:6, e0198213. [Crossref]
134. Jürg Hari, Elisabeth Pirsch, Heike Rawitzer. 2018. Women are scaredy-cats and men are conquerors?.
Journal of Financial Services Marketing 50. . [Crossref]
135. Jie Chen, William Hardin III, Mingzhi Hu. 2018. Housing, Wealth, Income and Consumption: China
and Homeownership Heterogeneity. Real Estate Economics 38. . [Crossref]
136. Glauco De Vita, Yun Luo. 2018. When do regulations matter for bank risk-taking? An analysis of
the interaction between external regulation and board characteristics. Corporate Governance: The
international journal of business in society 18:3, 440-461. [Crossref]
137. Timo Heinrich, Thomas Mayrhofer. 2018. Higher-order risk preferences in social settings.
Experimental Economics 21:2, 434-456. [Crossref]
138. Aurélien Baillon, Harris Schlesinger, Gijs van de Kuilen. 2018. Measuring higher order ambiguity
preferences. Experimental Economics 21:2, 233-256. [Crossref]
139. Ulf Nielsson, Herdis Steingrimsdottir. 2018. The signalling value of education across genders.
Empirical Economics 54:4, 1827-1854. [Crossref]
140. Luigi Guiso, Paola Sapienza, Luigi Zingales. 2018. Time varying risk aversion. Journal of Financial
Economics 128:3, 403-421. [Crossref]
141. Jonathan F. Schulz, Petra Thiemann, Christian Thöni. 2018. Nudging generosity: Choice architecture
and cognitive factors in charitable giving. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 74,
139-145. [Crossref]
142. Xiaojun Shi, Zhu Yan. 2018. Urbanization and risk preference in China: A decomposition of self-
selection and assimilation effects. China Economic Review 49, 210-228. [Crossref]
143. Lisa Bruttel, Florian Stolley. 2018. Gender Differences in the Response to Decision Power and
Responsibility—Framing Effects in a Dictator Game. Games 9:2, 28. [Crossref]
144. Christoph March, Marco Sahm. 2018. Contests as selection mechanisms: The impact of risk aversion.
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 150, 114-131. [Crossref]
145. Jeffrey A. Flory, Uri Gneezy, Kenneth L. Leonard, John A. List. 2018. Gender, age, and competition:
A disappearing gap?. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 150, 256-276. [Crossref]
146. Maria Adelaida Lopera, Steeve Marchand. 2018. Peer effects and risk-taking among entrepreneurs:
Lab-in-the-field evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 150, 182-201. [Crossref]
147. Alyssa Schneebaum, Miriam Rehm, Katharina Mader, Katarina Hollan. 2018. The Gender Wealth
Gap Across European Countries. Review of Income and Wealth 64:2, 295-331. [Crossref]
148. Yi Lu, Xinzheng Shi, Songfa Zhong. 2018. Competitive experience and gender difference in risk
preference, trust preference and academic performance: Evidence from Gaokao in China. Journal of
Comparative Economics . [Crossref]
149. SeEun Jung, Chung Choe, Ronald L. Oaxaca. 2018. Gender wage gaps and risky vs. secure
employment: An experimental analysis. Labour Economics 52, 112-121. [Crossref]
150. Mirko Duradoni, Mario Paolucci, Franco Bagnoli, Andrea Guazzini. 2018. Fairness and Trust in
Virtual Environments: The Effects of Reputation. Future Internet 10:6, 50. [Crossref]
151. Timothy K.M. Beatty, Bhagyashree Katare. 2018. Low-cost approaches to increasing gym attendance.
Journal of Health Economics . [Crossref]
152. Chung-Ching Tai, Shu-Heng Chen, Lee-Xieng Yang. 2018. Cognitive ability and earnings
performance: Evidence from double auction market experiments. Journal of Economic Dynamics and
Control 91, 409-440. [Crossref]
153. Ivo Bischoff, Björn Frank, Vibeke Müller. 2018. Wirtschaftspolitische Wählerpräferenzen:
Unabhängig – oder manipulierbar durch politische Handelsmarken?. List Forum für Wirtschafts- und
Finanzpolitik 44:2, 221-240. [Crossref]
154. Aseem Mahajan, Dustin Tingley, Gernot Wagner. 2018. Fast, cheap, and imperfect? US public
opinion about solar geoengineering. Environmental Politics 25, 1-21. [Crossref]
155. Alaa Mansour Zalata, Collins Ntim, Ahmed Aboud, Ernest Gyapong. 2018. Female CEOs and Core
Earnings Quality: New Evidence on the Ethics Versus Risk-Aversion Puzzle. Journal of Business Ethics
26. . [Crossref]
156. Caroline Slegten, Benny Geys, Bruno Heyndels. 2018. Sex differences in budgetary preferences among
Flemish local politicians. Acta Politica 130. . [Crossref]
157. Enav Friedmann, Oded Lowengart. 2018. The context of choice as boundary condition for gender
differences in brand choice considerations. European Journal of Marketing 52:5/6, 1280-1304.
[Crossref]
158. Werner Bönte, Vivien Procher, Diemo Urbig. 2018. Gender differences in selection into self-
competition. Applied Economics Letters 25:8, 539-543. [Crossref]
159. Belete J. Bobe, Ralph Kober. 2018. Does gender matter? The association between gender and the use
of management control systems and performance measures. Accounting & Finance 17. . [Crossref]
160. José Bilau, Josée St-Pierre. 2018. Microcredit repayment in a European context: evidence from
Portugal. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 68, 85-96. [Crossref]
161. Sandra E Black, Paul J Devereux, Petter Lundborg, Kaveh Majlesi. 2018. Learning to Take Risks?
The Effect of Education on Risk-Taking in Financial Markets*. Review of Finance 22:3, 951-975.
[Crossref]
162. Ann L. Owen, Judit Temesvary. 2018. The performance effects of gender diversity on bank boards.
Journal of Banking & Finance 90, 50-63. [Crossref]
163. Tenaw G. Abate, Morten R. Mørkbak, Søren B. Olsen. 2018. Inducing value and institutional learning
effects in stated choice experiments using advanced disclosure and instructional choice set treatments.
Agricultural Economics 49:3, 339-351. [Crossref]
164. Christine Exley. 2018. Incentives for Prosocial Behavior: The Role of Reputations. Management
Science 64:5, 2460-2471. [Crossref]
165. Kerstin Fiederling, Jörg Schiller, Frauke von Bieberstein. 2018. Can we Trust Consumers’ Survey
Answers when Dealing with Insurance Fraud?. Schmalenbach Business Review 70:2, 111-147. [Crossref]
166. Donna K. Ginther. 2018. Using Data to Inform the Science of Broadening Participation. American
Behavioral Scientist 62:5, 612-624. [Crossref]
167. Alexander L. Brown, Ajalavat Viriyavipart, Xiaoyuan Wang. 2018. Search deterrence in experimental
consumer goods markets. European Economic Review 104, 167-184. [Crossref]
168. Laura K. Gee. 2018. The More You Know: Information Effects on Job Application Rates in a Large
Field Experiment. Management Science . [Crossref]
169. Rachid Zeffane. 2018. Do age, work experience and gender affect individuals’ propensity to trust
others? An exploratory study in the United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Sociology and Social
Policy 38:3/4, 210-223. [Crossref]
170. Agnieszka Kwapisz, Diana M. Hechavarría. 2018. Women don’t ask: an investigation of start-up
financing and gender. Venture Capital 20:2, 159-190. [Crossref]
171. Aaron C. Weinschenk, Costas Panagopoulos, Karly Drabot, Sander van der Linden. 2018. Gender and
social conformity: Do men and women respond differently to social pressure to vote?. Social Influence
13:2, 53-64. [Crossref]
172. Syed Shafqat Mukarram, Tahira Ajmal, Abubakr Saeed. 2018. Women directors’ propensity towards
risk in technology firms. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society 18:2,
353-367. [Crossref]
173. Marianne Bertrand. 2018. Coase Lecture - The Glass Ceiling. Economica 85:338, 205-231. [Crossref]
174. Anna Conte, M. Vittoria Levati, Chiara Nardi. 2018. Risk Preferences and the Role of Emotions.
Economica 85:338, 305-328. [Crossref]
175. Chie Hanaoka, Hitoshi Shigeoka, Yasutora Watanabe. 2018. Do Risk Preferences Change? Evidence
from the Great East Japan Earthquake. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 10:2, 298-330.
[Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
176. Conchita D'Ambrosio, Andrew E. Clark, Marta Barazzetta. 2018. Unfairness at work: Well-being and
quits. Labour Economics 51, 307-316. [Crossref]
177. Ferdinand M. Vieider, Abebe Beyene, Randall Bluffstone, Sahan Dissanayake, Zenebe Gebreegziabher,
Peter Martinsson, Alemu Mekonnen. 2018. Measuring Risk Preferences in Rural Ethiopia. Economic
Development and Cultural Change 66:3, 417-446. [Crossref]
178. Silvia Saccardo, Aniela Pietrasz, Uri Gneezy. 2018. On the Size of the Gender Difference in
Competitiveness. Management Science 64:4, 1541-1554. [Crossref]
179. Eunmi Kim, Sejoong Lee, Joonwhan Lee. 2018. Reaching Sustainable Financial Health: Gender
Differences in Risk-Taking Patterns of Financially Excluded People. Sustainability 10:4, 1289.
[Crossref]
180. Thomas Buser, Leonie Gerhards, Joël van der Weele. 2018. Responsiveness to feedback as a personal
trait. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 56:2, 165-192. [Crossref]
181. Amanda Safford, James Sundali, Federico Guerrero. 2018. Does Experiencing a Crash Make All the
Difference? An Experiment on the Depression Babies Hypothesis. SAGE Open 8:2, 215824401877873.
[Crossref]
182. Anja Kirsch. 2018. The gender composition of corporate boards: A review and research agenda. The
Leadership Quarterly 29:2, 346-364. [Crossref]
183. Matteo Migheli. 2018. Brown parents, green dads: Gender, children, and environmental taxes. Journal
of Cleaner Production 180, 183-197. [Crossref]
184. Hendrik Bruns, Elena Kantorowicz-Reznichenko, Katharina Klement, Marijane Luistro Jonsson, Bilel
Rahali. 2018. Can nudges be transparent and yet effective?. Journal of Economic Psychology 65, 41-59.
[Crossref]
185. Inmaculada García-Mainar, Víctor M Montuenga, Guillermo García-Martín. 2018. Occupational
Prestige and Gender-Occupational Segregation. Work, Employment and Society 32:2, 348-367.
[Crossref]
186. Tina Haussen. 2018. Intra-household income inequality and preferences for redistribution. Review of
Economics of the Household 97. . [Crossref]
187. Laurent Tournois. 2018. Liveability, sense of place and behavioural intentions. Journal of Place
Management and Development 11:1, 97-114. [Crossref]
188. Camelia Ilie, Guillermo Cardoza. 2018. Thinking styles, gender, and decision making in Latin
American management. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración 31:1, 29-42. [Crossref]
189. François Cochard, Hélène Couprie, Astrid Hopfensitz. 2018. What if women earned more than their
spouses? An experimental investigation of work-division in couples. Experimental Economics 21:1,
50-71. [Crossref]
190. Kathryn N. Vasilaky, Asif M. Islam. 2018. Competition or cooperation? Using team and tournament
incentives for learning among female farmers in rural Uganda. World Development 103, 216-225.
[Crossref]
191. Unai Arzubiaga, Txomin Iturralde, Amaia Maseda, Josip Kotlar. 2018. Entrepreneurial orientation
and firm performance in family SMEs: the moderating effects of family, women, and strategic
involvement in the board of directors. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 14:1,
217-244. [Crossref]
192. Baylee Smith, Angelino Viceisza. 2018. Bite me! ABC’s Shark Tank as a path to entrepreneurship.
Small Business Economics 50:3, 463-479. [Crossref]
193. Baolei Qi, Jerry W. Lin, Gaoliang Tian, Hua Christine Xin Lewis. 2018. The Impact of Top
Management Team Characteristics on the Choice of Earnings Management Strategies: Evidence from
China. Accounting Horizons 32:1, 143-164. [Crossref]
194. Ganna Pogrebna, Andrew J. Oswald, David Haig. 2018. Female babies and risk-aversion: Causal
evidence from hospital wards. Journal of Health Economics 58, 10-17. [Crossref]
195. François Belot, Stéphanie Serve. 2018. Earnings Quality in Private SMEs: Do CEO Demographics
Matter?. Journal of Small Business Management 56, 323-344. [Crossref]
196. Hilke Brockmann, Anne-Maren Koch, Adele Diederich, Christofer Edling. 2018. Why Managerial
Women are Less Happy Than Managerial Men. Journal of Happiness Studies 19:3, 755-779. [Crossref]
197. Andrea Mattozzi, Erik Snowberg. 2018. The right type of legislator: A theory of taxation and
representation. Journal of Public Economics 159, 54-65. [Crossref]
198. Dorota Skała, Laurent Weill. 2018. Does CEO gender matter for bank risk?. Economic Systems 42:1,
64-74. [Crossref]
199. T. A. Garanina, A. A. Muravyev. 2018. Boards of directors in Russian publicly traded companies: the
gender aspect. Voprosy Ekonomiki :2, 142-155. [Crossref]
200. Samuel P. L. Veissière, Moriah Stendel. 2018. Hypernatural Monitoring: A Social Rehearsal Account
of Smartphone Addiction. Frontiers in Psychology 9. . [Crossref]
201. Arthur Schram, Jordi Brandts, Klarita Gërxhani. 2018. Social-status ranking: a hidden channel to
gender inequality under competition. Experimental Economics 56. . [Crossref]
202. Daniel Horn, Hubert Janos Kiss. 2018. Which preferences associate with school performance?—
Lessons from an exploratory study with university students. PLOS ONE 13:2, e0190163. [Crossref]
203. Ni Huang, Gordon Burtch, Bin Gu, Yili Hong, Chen Liang, Kanliang Wang, Dongpu Fu, Bo Yang.
2018. Motivating User-Generated Content with Performance Feedback: Evidence from Randomized
Field Experiments. Management Science . [Crossref]
204. Friederike Mengel, Jan Sauermann, Ulf Zölitz. 2018. Gender Bias in Teaching Evaluations. Journal
of the European Economic Association 94. . [Crossref]
205. Alexander Soutschek, André Weinreich, Torsten Schubert. 2018. Facial electromyography reveals
dissociable affective responses in social and non-social cooperation. Motivation and Emotion 42:1,
118-125. [Crossref]
206. Ali Mohammadi, Kourosh Shafi. 2018. Gender differences in the contribution patterns of equity-
crowdfunding investors. Small Business Economics 50:2, 275-287. [Crossref]
207. Matthew Wiswall, Basit Zafar. 2018. Preference for the Workplace, Investment in Human Capital,
and Gender*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 133:1, 457-507. [Crossref]
208. Nancy R. Baldiga, Katherine B. Coffman. 2018. Laboratory Evidence on the Effects of Sponsorship
on the Competitive Preferences of Men and Women. Management Science 64:2, 888-901. [Crossref]
209. Gary Charness, Catherine Eckel, Uri Gneezy, Agne Kajackaite. 2018. Complexity in risk elicitation
may affect the conclusions: A demonstration using gender differences. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty
56:1, 1-17. [Crossref]
210. Katharina Lima de Miranda, Levent Neyse, Ulrich Schmidt. 2018. Risk Preferences and Predictions
about Others: No Association with 2D:4D Ratio. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 12. . [Crossref]
211. Carlos Alós-Ferrer, Jaume García-Segarra, Alexander Ritschel. 2018. Performance curiosity. Journal
of Economic Psychology 64, 1-17. [Crossref]
212. Lara Ezquerra, Gueorgui I. Kolev, Ismael Rodriguez-Lara. 2018. Gender differences in cheating: Loss
vs. gain framing. Economics Letters 163, 46-49. [Crossref]
213. Andrea Buratti, Francesca Maria Cesaroni, Annalisa Sentuti. Does Gender Matter in Strategies
Adopted to Face the Economic Crisis? A Comparison Between Men and Women Entrepreneurs .
[Crossref]
214. Herring Shava. 2018. Impact of gender on small and medium-sized entities’ access to venture capital
in South Africa. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences 21:1. . [Crossref]
215. Shahar Sansani. 2018. Ethnicity and risk: a field test of the white-male effect. Applied Economics
Letters 25:2, 74-77. [Crossref]
216. Tobias Karlsson, Maria Stanfors. 2018. Risk Preferences and Gender Differences in Union
Membership in Late Nineteenth-Century Swedish Manufacturing. Feminist Economics 24:1, 114-141.
[Crossref]
217. Kathrin Wolf, Michael Frese. 2018. Why husbands matter: Review of spousal influence on women
entrepreneurship in sub-Saharan Africa. Africa Journal of Management 4:1, 1-32. [Crossref]
218. Irene Comeig, Marc Lurbe. Gender Behavioral Issues and Entrepreneurship 149-159. [Crossref]
219. Raffaeue Trequattrini, Fabio Nappo, Aiessandra Lardo, Benedstta Cuozzo. Intellectual Capital and
Gender Capital: The Case of Italian Universities 159-173. [Crossref]
220. Lucia Marchegiani, Tommaso Reggiani, Matteo Rizzolli. Gender Effects in Injustice Perceptions: An
Experiment on Error Evaluation and Effort Provision 193-202. [Crossref]
221. Marco Novarese, Viviana Di Giovinazzo. Financial Education 1-5. [Crossref]
222. Khairul Anuar Kamarudin, Wan Adibah Wan Ismail, Airul Aezza Kamaruzzaman. 165. [Crossref]
223. Zsofia Margittai, Gideon Nave, Marijn Van Wingerden, Alfons Schnitzler, Lars Schwabe, Tobias
Kalenscher. 2018. Combined Effects of Glucocorticoid and Noradrenergic Activity on Loss Aversion.
Neuropsychopharmacology 43:2, 334-341. [Crossref]
224. Gonzalo Villa-Cox, Everardo Quezada, Joseph Aguilar-Bohorquez, Ivanna Valverde-Bajana, Paul Vera-
Gilces. 2018. Diseño experimental para la entrada de una firma en un mercado monopolístico con
efectos de red: caso de estudio con estudiantes de pregrado en un rol empresarial. Cuadernos de
Economía 41:115, 130-139. [Crossref]
225. Ina Kubbe. Let’s Play: Bribery Games in the US and Germany 153-185. [Crossref]
226. Terence C. Burnham. 2018. Gender, Punishment, and Cooperation: Men Hurt Others to Advance
Their Interests. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 4, 237802311774224. [Crossref]
227. Petr Houdek. 2018. Economic Holobiont: Influence of Parasites, Microbiota and Chemosignals on
Economic Behavior. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 12. . [Crossref]
228. Ibrahim Tijjani Sabiu, Abdulaziz Abdullah. Differences in Gender: Does It Exist in Bumiputra
Entrepreneurs? 135-150. [Crossref]
229. Johannes Buckenmaier, Eugen Dimant, Luigi Mittone. 2018. Effects of institutional history and
leniency on collusive corruption and tax evasion. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization .
[Crossref]
230. Hun Whee Lee, Jin Nam Choi, Seongsu Kim. 2018. Does gender diversity help teams constructively
manage status conflict? An evolutionary perspective of status conflict, team psychological safety, and
team creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 144, 187-199. [Crossref]
231. Sana’ Kamal, Yousef Daoud. Explaining the Gender Gap in Entrepreneurial Propensity 327-350.
[Crossref]
232. Moez Bennouri, Tawhid Chtioui, Haithem Nagati, Mehdi Nekhili. 2018. Female Board Directorship
and Firm Performance: What Really Matters?. Journal of Banking & Finance . [Crossref]
233. Derek D. Rucker, Adam D. Galinsky, Joe C. Magee. The Agentic–Communal Model of Advantage
and Disadvantage: How Inequality Produces Similarities in the Psychology of Power, Social Class,
Gender, and Race 71-125. [Crossref]
234. Miroslav Hudec, Zuzana Brokešová. Mining and Linguistically Interpreting Summaries from Surveyed
Data Related to Financial Literacy and Behaviour 67-83. [Crossref]
235. Tali Kristal, Yinon Cohen, Edo Navot. 2018. Benefit Inequality among American Workers by Gender,
Race, and Ethnicity, 1982-2015. Sociological Science 5, 461-488. [Crossref]
236. Patricia Peinado, Felipe Serrano. Gender Inequality in the Labour Market and the Great Recession
233-274. [Crossref]
237. . References 87-93. [Crossref]
238. Karine Lamiraud, Radu Vranceanu. 2018. Group gender composition and economic decision-making:
Evidence from the Kallystée business game. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 145, 294-305.
[Crossref]
239. Jonathan Ostry, Jorge Alvarez, Raphael Espinoza, Chris Papageorgiou. 2018. Economic Gains From
Gender Inclusion: New Mechanisms, New Evidence. Staff Discussion Notes 18:06, 1. [Crossref]
240. Friederike Mengel. 2017. Risk and Temptation: A Meta-study on Prisoner's Dilemma Games. The
Economic Journal 37. . [Crossref]
241. Zhixin Xie, Lionel Page, Ben Hardy. 2017. Investigating Gender Differences under Time Pressure in
Financial Risk Taking. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 11. . [Crossref]
242. Richard Chamboko, Gerald Kadira, Lisho Mundia, Rumbidzai K.T. Chamboko. 2017. Mapping
patterns of financial distress among consumers in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Social Economics
44:12, 1654-1668. [Crossref]
243. Claudia R. Schneider, Dennis D. Fehrenbacher, Elke U. Weber. 2017. Catch me if I fall: Cross-
national differences in willingness to take financial risks as a function of social and state ‘cushioning’.
International Business Review 26:6, 1023-1033. [Crossref]
244. Boris Kaiser. 2017. Gender-specific practice styles and ambulatory health care expenditures. The
European Journal of Health Economics 18:9, 1157-1179. [Crossref]
245. Yuta Katsumi, Suhkyung Kim, Keen Sung, Florin Dolcos, Sanda Dolcos. 2017. When Nonverbal
Greetings “Make It or Break It”: The Role of Ethnicity and Gender in the Effect of Handshake on
Social Appraisals. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 41:4, 345-365. [Crossref]
246. Julia B. Bear, Lily Cushenbery, Manuel London, Gary D. Sherman. 2017. Performance feedback,
power retention, and the gender gap in leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 28:6, 721-740. [Crossref]
247. Tim Friehe, Mario Mechtel. 2017. Gambling to leapfrog in status?. Review of Economics of the
Household 15:4, 1291-1319. [Crossref]
248. Ola Kvaløy, Miguel Luzuriaga, Trond E. Olsen. 2017. A trust game in loss domain. Experimental
Economics 20:4, 860-877. [Crossref]
249. et al. Bahari. 2017. Malaysian women entrepreneurial characteristics, strategic orientation and
firm performance: The moderator role of government support programs. International Journal of
ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES 4:12, 257-262. [Crossref]
250. JAROMÍR KOVÁŘÍK, PABLO BRAÑAS-GARZA, MICHAEL W. DAVIDSON, DOTAN A.
HAIM, SHANNON CARCELLI, JAMES H. FOWLER. 2017. Digit ratio (2D:4D) and social
integration: An effect of prenatal sex hormones. Network Science 5:04, 476-489. [Crossref]
251. Shun Wang, Weina Zhou. 2017. Family structure and home ownership: Evidence from China. China
Economic Review 46, 165-179. [Crossref]
252. Philippe P.F.M. van de Calseyde, Gideon Keren, Marcel Zeelenberg. 2017. The Hidden Cost of
Insurance on Cooperation. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 30:5, 1182-1192. [Crossref]
253. Anica Veronika Fietz, Sven Grüner. 2017. Transparency systems: do businesses in North Rhine-
Westphalia (Germany) regret the cancellation of the Smiley scheme?. Agricultural and Food Economics
5:1. . [Crossref]
254. David M. Bruner, John D'Attoma, Sven Steinmo. 2017. The role of gender in the provision of public
goods through tax compliance. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 71, 45-55. [Crossref]
255. Karen Maguire, John V. Winters. 2017. Energy Boom and Gloom? Local Effects of Oil and Natural
Gas Drilling on Subjective Well-Being. Growth and Change 48:4, 590-610. [Crossref]
256. Simon Binder, Robert Nuscheler. 2017. Risk-taking in vaccination, surgery, and gambling
environments: Evidence from a framed laboratory experiment. Health Economics 26, 76-96. [Crossref]
257. Jeannette Brosig-Koch, Burkhard Hehenkamp, Johanna Kokot. 2017. The effects of competition on
medical service provision. Health Economics 26, 6-20. [Crossref]
258. Bradley T. Heim, Lang Kate Yang. 2017. The impact of the Affordable Care Act on self-employment.
Health Economics 26:12, e256-e273. [Crossref]
259. Matthias Sutter, Francesco Feri, Daniela Glätzle-Rützler, Martin G. Kocher, Peter Martinsson,
Katarina Nordblom. 2017. Social preferences in childhood and adolescence. A large-scale experiment
to estimate primary and secondary motivations. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization .
[Crossref]
260. Björn Bartling, Manuel Grieder, Christian Zehnder. 2017. Competitive pricing reduces wasteful
counterproductive behaviors. Journal of Public Economics 156, 34-47. [Crossref]
261. Henrik Cronqvist, Frank Yu. 2017. Shaped by their daughters: Executives, female socialization, and
corporate social responsibility. Journal of Financial Economics 126:3, 543-562. [Crossref]
262. Rachid Zeffane. 2017. Gender, individualism–collectivism and individuals’ propensity to trust: A
comparative exploratory study. Journal of Management & Organization 9, 1-15. [Crossref]
263. Michael M. Bechtel, Kenneth F. Scheve. 2017. Who Cooperates? Reciprocity and the Causal Effect of
Expected Cooperation in Representative Samples. Journal of Experimental Political Science 122, 1-23.
[Crossref]
264. Kristin J. Kleinjans, Karl Fritjof Krassel, Anthony Dukes. 2017. Occupational Prestige and the Gender
Wage Gap. Kyklos 70:4, 565-593. [Crossref]
265. Menusch Khadjavi. 2017. Indirect Reciprocity and Charitable Giving— Evidence from a Field
Experiment. Management Science 63:11, 3708-3717. [Crossref]
266. Ashley C. Craig, Ellen Garbarino, Stephanie A. Heger, Robert Slonim. 2017. Waiting To Give: Stated
and Revealed Preferences. Management Science 63:11, 3672-3690. [Crossref]
267. Alexander Soutschek, Christopher J. Burke, Anjali Raja Beharelle, Robert Schreiber, Susanna C.
Weber, Iliana I. Karipidis, Jolien ten Velden, Bernd Weber, Helene Haker, Tobias Kalenscher, Philippe
N. Tobler. 2017. The dopaminergic reward system underpins gender differences in social preferences.
Nature Human Behaviour 1:11, 819-827. [Crossref]
268. Amir Shoham, Tamar Almor, Sang Mook Lee, Mohammad F. Ahammad. 2017. Encouraging
environmental sustainability through gender: A micro-foundational approach using linguistic gender
marking. Journal of Organizational Behavior 38:9, 1356-1379. [Crossref]
269. Sanjit Dhami, Mengxing Wei, Ali al-Nowaihi. 2017. Public goods games and psychological utility:
Theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization . [Crossref]
270. Mamdouh Hassan, Benny Geys. 2017. What Do We Value Most in Schools? A Study of Preference
Rankings of School Attributes. Social Science Quarterly 98:5, 1313-1327. [Crossref]
271. Ofra Bazel-Shoham, Sang Mook Lee, Michael J. Rivera, Amir Shoham. 2017. Impact of the female
board members and gaps in linguistic gender marking on cross-border M&A. Journal of World Business
. [Crossref]
272. David G. Rand. 2017. Social dilemma cooperation (unlike Dictator Game giving) is intuitive for men
as well as women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 73, 164-168. [Crossref]
273. Paul F. Hill, Richard Yi, R. Nathan Spreng, Rachel A. Diana. 2017. Neural congruence between
intertemporal and interpersonal self-control: Evidence from delay and social discounting. NeuroImage
162, 186-198. [Crossref]
274. Holger Gerhardt, Hannah Schildberg-Hörisch, Jana Willrodt. 2017. Does self-control depletion affect
risk attitudes?. European Economic Review 100, 463-487. [Crossref]
275. Usha Singh, Daniel Weimar. 2017. Empowerment among generations. German Journal of Human
Resource Management: Zeitschrift für Personalforschung 31:4, 307-328. [Crossref]
276. Miroslava Federičová, Filip Pertold, Michael L. Smith. 2017. Children left behind: self-confidence of
pupils in competitive environments. Education Economics 230, 1-16. [Crossref]
277. Benjamin Yeo, Delvin Grant. 2017. Exploring the effects of ICTs, workforce, and gender on capacity
utilization. Information Technology for Development 8, 1-29. [Crossref]
278. Roberto Cabaleiro Casal, Enrique Buch Gómez. 2017. Adjustments in municipal fiscal crises. Are they
different according to the gender of the mayor?. Local Government Studies 6, 1-20. [Crossref]
279. Naima Lassoued. 2017. What drives credit risk of microfinance institutions? International evidence.
International Journal of Managerial Finance 13:5, 541-559. [Crossref]
280. Hubert János Kiss, Adrienn Selei. 2017. Do streaks matter in multiple-choice tests?. Education
Economics 4, 1-15. [Crossref]
281. Robert James Parker, Mai Dao, Hua-Wei Huang, Yun-Chia Yan. 2017. Disclosing material weakness
in internal controls: Does the gender of audit committee members matter?. Asia-Pacific Journal of
Accounting & Economics 24:3-4, 407-420. [Crossref]
282. Rajib Sanyal, Subarna Samanta. 2017. Bribery in International Business in Post-Soviet Union
Countries. Journal of East-West Business 23:4, 388-402. [Crossref]
283. Shane M. Redman. 2017. Descriptive Gender Representation and Legitimacy in U.S. Trial Courts.
Justice System Journal 38:4, 311-331. [Crossref]
284. Biswajit Ray, Promita Mukherjee, Rabindra N. Bhattacharya. 2017. Attitudes and cooperation: does
gender matter in community-based forest management?. Environment and Development Economics
22:05, 594-623. [Crossref]
285. Magdalena Buckert, Christiane Schwieren, Brigitte M. Kudielka, Christian J. Fiebach. 2017. How
stressful are economic competitions in the lab? An investigation with physiological measures. Journal
of Economic Psychology 62, 231-245. [Crossref]
286. Felix Kölle. 2017. Affirmative action, cooperation, and the willingness to work in teams. Journal of
Economic Psychology 62, 50-62. [Crossref]
287. Mehmet Y. Gürdal, Tolga U. Kuzubaş, Burak Saltoğlu. 2017. Measures of individual risk attitudes
and portfolio choice: Evidence from pension participants. Journal of Economic Psychology 62, 186-203.
[Crossref]
288. Eva Hofmann, Martin Voracek, Christine Bock, Erich Kirchler. 2017. Tax compliance across
sociodemographic categories: Meta-analyses of survey studies in 111 countries. Journal of Economic
Psychology 62, 63-71. [Crossref]
289. Cristina Cruz, Rachida Justo. 2017. Portfolio Entrepreneurship as a Mixed Gamble: A Winning Bet
for Family Entrepreneurs in SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management 55:4, 571-593. [Crossref]
290. G. Roder, G. Sofia, Z. Wu, P. Tarolli. 2017. Assessment of Social Vulnerability to Floods in the
Floodplain of Northern Italy. Weather, Climate, and Society 9:4, 717-737. [Crossref]
291. Subhasish M. Chowdhury, Joo Young Jeon, Bibhas Saha. 2017. Gender Differences in the Giving and
Taking Variants of the Dictator Game. Southern Economic Journal 84:2, 474-483. [Crossref]
292. Tobias Johansson, Gabriella Wennblom. 2017. In female supervisors male subordinates trust!? An
experiment on supervisor and subordinate gender and the perceptions of tight control. Journal of
Management Control 28:3, 321-345. [Crossref]
293. Irene Comeig, Ainhoa Jaramillo-Gutiérrez, Federico Ramírez. 2017. Toward Value Co-Creation:
Increasing Women’s Presence in Management Positions through Competition against a Set Target.
Sustainability 9:10, 1833. [Crossref]
294. Ghazala Azmat, Rosa Ferrer. 2017. Gender Gaps in Performance: Evidence from Young Lawyers.
Journal of Political Economy 125:5, 1306-1355. [Crossref]
295. Heng Qu, Richard Steinberg. 2017. Charitable Giving in Nonprofit Service Associations: Identities,
Incentives, and Gender Differences. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 46:5, 984-1005.
[Crossref]
296. Margaret Lee, Marko Pitesa, Madan M. Pillutla, Stefan Thau. 2017. Male Immorality: An
Evolutionary Account of Sex Differences in Unethical Negotiation Behavior. Academy of Management
Journal 60:5, 2014-2044. [Crossref]
297. Werner Bönte, Sandro Lombardo, Diemo Urbig. 2017. Economics meets psychology: Experimental
and self-reported measures of individual competitiveness. Personality and Individual Differences 116,
179-185. [Crossref]
298. Tony So, Paul Brown, Ananish Chaudhuri, Dmitry Ryvkin, Linda Cameron. 2017. Piece-rates and
tournaments: Implications for learning in a cognitively challenging task. Journal of Economic Behavior
& Organization 142, 11-23. [Crossref]
299. Henry Markovits, Evelyne Gauthier, Émilie Gagnon-St-Pierre, Joyce F. Benenson. 2017. High status
males invest more than high status females in lower status same-sex collaborators. PLOS ONE 12:9,
e0185408. [Crossref]
300. Eelco Harteveld, Stefan Dahlberg, Andrej Kokkonen, Wouter Van Der Brug. 2017. Gender Differences
in Vote Choice: Social Cues and Social Harmony as Heuristics. British Journal of Political Science 57,
1-21. [Crossref]
301. Michael Breen, Robert Gillanders, Gemma Mcnulty, Akisato Suzuki. 2017. Gender and Corruption
in Business. The Journal of Development Studies 53:9, 1486-1501. [Crossref]
302. Matteo Migheli, Flavia Coda Moscarola. 2017. Gender Differences in Financial Education: Evidence
from Primary School. De Economist 165:3, 321-347. [Crossref]
303. Vesile Kutlu-Koc, Rob Alessie, Adriaan Kalwij. 2017. Consumption Behavior, Annuity Income and
Mortality Risk of Retirees. De Economist 165:3, 349-380. [Crossref]
304. Kim A. Young, Robert T. Greenbaum, Noah C. Dormady. 2017. Sex, gender, and disasters:
Experimental evidence on the decision to invest in resilience. International Journal of Disaster Risk
Reduction 24, 439-450. [Crossref]
305. Marion Hutchinson, Janet Mack, Peter Verhoeven. 2017. Women in leadership: an analysis of the
gender pay gap in ASX-listed firms. Accounting & Finance 57:3, 789-813. [Crossref]
306. Erwin Bulte, Robert Lensink, Nhung Vu. 2017. Do Gender and Business Trainings Affect Business
Outcomes? Experimental Evidence from Vietnam. Management Science 63:9, 2885-2902. [Crossref]
307. Francine D. Blau, Lawrence M. Kahn. 2017. The Gender Wage Gap: Extent, Trends, and
Explanations. Journal of Economic Literature 55:3, 789-865. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with
links]
308. Diana C. Robertson, Christian Voegtlin, Thomas Maak. 2017. Business Ethics: The Promise of
Neuroscience. Journal of Business Ethics 144:4, 679-697. [Crossref]
309. Juliet U. Elu, Gregory N. Price. 2017. Science Labor Supply in Sub-Saharan Africa: Is There a Gender
Disparity in Preferences?. African Development Review 29:3, 367-375. [Crossref]
310. Lucio Esposito, Adrián Villaseñor. 2017. Relative deprivation: Measurement issues and predictive role
for body image dissatisfaction. Social Science & Medicine . [Crossref]
311. Andreas Pondorfer, Toman Barsbai, Ulrich Schmidt. 2017. Gender Differences in Stereotypes of Risk
Preferences: Experimental Evidence from a Matrilineal and a Patrilineal Society. Management Science
63:10, 3268-3284. [Crossref]
312. Brianna Halladay. 2017. Gender, Emotions, and Tournament Performance in the Laboratory. Games
8:3, 26. [Crossref]
313. Aimilia Protogerou, Yannis Caloghirou, Nicholas S. Vonortas. 2017. Determinants of young firms’
innovative performance: Empirical evidence from Europe. Research Policy 46:7, 1312-1326. [Crossref]
314. Carl Bonander, Carolina Jernbro. 2017. Does gender moderate the association between intellectual
ability and accidental injuries? Evidence from the 1953 Stockholm Birth Cohort study. Accident Analysis
& Prevention 106, 109-114. [Crossref]
315. Ernesto Reuben, Matthew Wiswall, Basit Zafar. 2017. Preferences and Biases in Educational Choices
and Labour Market Expectations: Shrinking the Black Box of Gender. The Economic Journal 127:604,
2153-2186. [Crossref]
316. Jerad H. Moxley, K. Anders Ericsson, Michael Tuffiash. 2017. Gender differences in SCRABBLE
performance and associated engagement in purposeful practice activities. Psychological Research 51. .
[Crossref]
317. Vicki L. Bogan, Angela R. Fertig. 2017. Mental health and retirement savings: Confounding issues
with compounding interest. Health Economics 2. . [Crossref]
318. Ammad Ahmed, Reza M. Monem, Deborah Delaney, Chew Ng. 2017. Gender diversity in corporate
boards and continuous disclosure: Evidence from Australia. Journal of Contemporary Accounting &
Economics 13:2, 89-107. [Crossref]
319. Katrin Auspurg, Maria Iacovou, Cheti Nicoletti. 2017. Housework share between partners:
Experimental evidence on gender-specific preferences. Social Science Research 66, 118-139. [Crossref]
320. Maria Abreu, Vadim Grinevich. 2017. Gender patterns in academic entrepreneurship. The Journal of
Technology Transfer 42:4, 763-794. [Crossref]
321. Juan Manuel Garc?a Lara, Beatriz Garc?a Osma, Araceli Mora, Mariano Scapin. 2017. The monitoring
role of female directors over accounting quality. Journal of Corporate Finance 45, 651-668. [Crossref]
322. Jan Keil, Andrea Michel, Fabio Sticca, Kristina Leipold, Annette M. Klein, Susan Sierau, Kai von
Klitzing, Lars O. White. 2017. The Pizzagame: A virtual public goods game to assess cooperative
behavior in children and adolescents. Behavior Research Methods 49:4, 1432-1443. [Crossref]
323. Danilo V. Mascia, Stefania P.S. Rossi. 2017. Is there a gender effect on the cost of bank financing?.
Journal of Financial Stability 31, 136-153. [Crossref]
324. Nicole M. Fortin, Brian Bell, Michael Böhm. 2017. Top earnings inequality and the gender pay gap:
Canada, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Labour Economics 47, 107-123. [Crossref]
325. Chen Pan, Chuanliang Jia, Jie Su, Junlin Chen. 2017. The research of emergency managers’ risk
attitude based on genetic neural network. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 887, 012032. [Crossref]
326. Giuseppe Mastromatteo, Francesco Flaviano Russo. 2017. Inequality and Charity. World Development
96, 136-144. [Crossref]
327. Syon P. Bhanot. 2017. Cheap promises: Evidence from loan repayment pledges in an online
experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 140, 246-266. [Crossref]
328. Tineke Backer van Ommeren, Hans M Koot, Anke M Scheeren, Sander Begeer. 2017. Sex differences
in the reciprocal behaviour of children with autism. Autism 21:6, 795-803. [Crossref]
329. Seung-Hwan Jeong, David A. Harrison. 2017. Glass Breaking, Strategy Making, and Value Creating:
Meta-Analytic Outcomes of Women as CEOs and TMT members. Academy of Management Journal
60:4, 1219-1252. [Crossref]
330. Nejat Anbarci, K. Peren Arin, Cagla Okten, Christina Zenker. 2017. Is Roger Federer more loss averse
than Serena Williams?. Applied Economics 49:35, 3546-3559. [Crossref]
331. Jinghui Sun, Pamela Kent, Baolei Qi, Jiwei Wang. 2017. Chief financial officer demographic
characteristics and fraudulent financial reporting in China. Accounting & Finance 26. . [Crossref]
332. Rosella Nicolini, José Luis Roig. 2017. Gender and culture: do they matter for norms?. Applied
Economics Letters 15, 1-5. [Crossref]
333. Andrea Cutillo, Marco Centra. 2017. Gender-Based Occupational Choices and Family
Responsibilities: The Gender wage gap in Italy. Feminist Economics 1, 1-31. [Crossref]
334. Steven Huddart, Abdullah Yavas. 2017. The Efficiency of Stock-Based Incentives: Experimental
Evidence. Journal of Behavioral Finance 57, 1-23. [Crossref]
335. Linda H. Chen, Jeffrey Gramlich, Kimberly A. Houser. 2017. The effects of board gender diversity
on a firm's risk strategies. Accounting & Finance 26. . [Crossref]
336. Giovanni Di Bartolomeo, Stefano Papa. 2017. The Effects of Physical Activity on Social Interactions.
Journal of Sports Economics 235, 152700251771729. [Crossref]
337. Nick Deschacht, Ann-Sophie De Pauw, Stijn Baert. 2017. Do gender differences in career aspirations
contribute to sticky floors?. International Journal of Manpower 38:4, 580-593. [Crossref]
338. Daniel Stockemer, Bilel Kchouk. 2017. Inclusive parliaments: a trigger for higher electoral integrity?.
The Journal of Legislative Studies 23:3, 419-438. [Crossref]
339. Guillaume R. Fréchette, Andrew Schotter, Isabel Trevino. 2017. PERSONALITY, INFORMATION
ACQUISITION, AND CHOICE UNDER UNCERTAINTY: AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY.
Economic Inquiry 55:3, 1468-1488. [Crossref]
340. Géraldine Hottegindre, Marie-Claire Loison, Anne-Laure Farjaudon. 2017. Male and Female
Auditors: An Ethical Divide?. International Journal of Auditing 21:2, 131-149. [Crossref]
341. Johannes Schünemann, Holger Strulik, Timo Trimborn. 2017. The gender gap in mortality: How
much is explained by behavior?. Journal of Health Economics 54, 79-90. [Crossref]
342. Alexandra Avdeenko, Thomas Siedler. 2017. Intergenerational Correlations of Extreme Right-Wing
Party Preferences and Attitudes toward Immigration. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics 119:3,
768-800. [Crossref]
343. Michael Jetter, Jay K. Walker. 2017. Good Girl, Bad Boy? Evidence Consistent with Collusion in
Professional Tennis. Southern Economic Journal 84:1, 155-180. [Crossref]
344. Angela Cristiane Santos P?voa, Maickel Robert Maffezzolli, Wesley Pech, Wesley Vieira da Silva.
2017. A Influ?ncia do G?nero no Processo Decis?rio: O Jogo do Ultimato. Revista de Administra??o
Contempor?nea 21:4, 481-499. [Crossref]
345. Robert Shupp, Scott Loveridge, Mark Skidmore, Jungmin Lim, Cynthia Rogers. 2017. Risk, Loss,
and Ambiguity Aversion after a Natural Disaster. Economics of Disasters and Climate Change 1:2,
121-142. [Crossref]
346. Kerstin Grosch, Holger A. Rau. 2017. Gender Differences in Honesty: The Role of Social Value
Orientation. Journal of Economic Psychology . [Crossref]
347. Nini Mao, Hongna Zheng, Zhiying Long, Li Yao, Xia Wu. Gender differences in dynamic functional
connectivity based on resting-state fMRI 2940-2943. [Crossref]
348. Jianjun Jin, Rui He, Haozhou Gong, Xia Xu, Chunyang He. 2017. Farmers’ Risk Preferences in Rural
China: Measurements and Determinants. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health 14:7, 713. [Crossref]
349. Natascha Wagner, Matthias Rieger, Arjun Bedi, Wil Hout. 2017. Gender and Policing Norms:
Evidence from Survey Experiments Among Police Officers in Uganda. Journal of African Economies
1-24. [Crossref]
350. Alan de Bromhead. 2017. Women voters and trade protectionism in the interwar years. Oxford
Economic Papers . [Crossref]
351. Mohd. Nishat Faisal, Fauzia Jabeen, Marios I. Katsioloudes. 2017. Strategic interventions to improve
women entrepreneurship in GCC countries. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies 9:2,
161-180. [Crossref]
352. Carmen Garcia-Prieto, Patricia Gómez-Costilla. 2017. Gender wage gap and education: a stochastic
frontier approach. International Journal of Manpower 38:3, 504-516. [Crossref]
353. Anne-Mie Reheul, Tom Van Caneghem, Machteld Van den Bogaerd, Sandra Verbruggen. 2017.
Auditor gender, experience and reporting in nonprofit organizations. Managerial Auditing Journal
32:6, 550-577. [Crossref]
354. Sven Nolte, Judith C. Schneider. 2017. Don’t lapse into temptation: a behavioral explanation for policy
surrender. Journal of Banking & Finance 79, 12-27. [Crossref]
355. Nora Nickels, Konrad Kubicki, Dario Maestripieri. 2017. Sex Differences in the Effects of Psychosocial
Stress on Cooperative and Prosocial Behavior: Evidence for ‘Flight or Fight’ in Males and ‘Tend and
Befriend’ in Females. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology 3:2, 171-183. [Crossref]
356. John Douglas Skåtun. 2017. Bargaining on your Spouse: Coasean and Non-Coasean Behaviour Within
Marriage. Journal of Family and Economic Issues 38:2, 263-278. [Crossref]
357. Thomas Buser, Anna Dreber, Johanna Mollerstrom. 2017. The impact of stress on tournament entry.
Experimental Economics 20:2, 506-530. [Crossref]
358. Anica Fietz, Sven Grüner. 2017. Der Smiley in Nordrhein-Westfalen (Deutschland): Welche Firmen
bedauern die Abschaffung des Transparenzsystems?. Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety
12:2, 115-123. [Crossref]
359. Mary Ellen Carter, Francesca Franco, Mireia Gine. 2017. Executive Gender Pay Gaps: The Roles of
Female Risk Aversion and Board Representation. Contemporary Accounting Research 34:2, 1232-1264.
[Crossref]
360. A. Can Inci, M. P. Narayanan, H. Nejat Seyhun. 2017. Gender Differences in Executives? Access to
Information. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 52:03, 991-1016. [Crossref]
361. Imke L.J. Lemmers-Jansen, Lydia Krabbendam, Dick J. Veltman, Anne-Kathrin J. Fett. 2017. Boys
vs. girls: Gender differences in the neural development of trust and reciprocity depend on social
context. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience 25, 235-245. [Crossref]
362. Gerhard Riener, Valentin Wagner. 2017. Shying Away from Demanding Tasks? Experimental Evidence
on Gender Differences in Answering Multiple-Choice Questions. Economics of Education Review .
[Crossref]
363. Jan Hanousek, Anastasiya Shamshur, Jiri Tresl. 2017. Firm efficiency, foreign ownership and CEO
gender in corrupt environments. Journal of Corporate Finance . [Crossref]
364. Jonathan P. Beauchamp, David Cesarini, Magnus Johannesson. 2017. The psychometric and empirical
properties of measures of risk preferences. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 54:3, 203-237. [Crossref]
365. Zhuoqiong (Charlie) Chen, David Ong, Ella Segev. 2017. Heterogeneous risk/loss aversion in
complete information all-pay auctions. European Economic Review 95, 23-37. [Crossref]
366. Anni Huhtala, Piia Remes. 2017. Quantifying the social costs of nuclear energy: Perceived risk of
accident at nuclear power plants. Energy Policy 105, 320-331. [Crossref]
367. Gianfranco Walsh, Mario Schaarschmidt, Stefan Ivens. 2017. Effects of customer-based corporate
reputation on perceived risk and relational outcomes: empirical evidence from gender moderation in
fashion retailing. Journal of Product & Brand Management 26:3, 227-238. [Crossref]
368. Maria De Paola, Vincenzo Scoppa. 2017. Gender differences in reaction to psychological pressure:
evidence from tennis players. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 26:3, 444-456.
[Crossref]
369. SeEun Jung. 2017. The gender wage gap and sample selection via risk attitudes. International Journal
of Manpower 38:2, 318-335. [Crossref]
370. Yoshio Kamijo, Asuka Komiya, Nobuhiro Mifune, Tatsuyoshi Saijo. 2017. Negotiating with the
future: incorporating imaginary future generations into negotiations. Sustainability Science 12:3,
409-420. [Crossref]
371. Coren L. Apicella, Elif E. Demiral, Johanna Mollerstrom. 2017. No Gender Difference in Willingness
to Compete When Competing against Self. American Economic Review 107:5, 136-140. [Abstract]
[View PDF article] [PDF with links]
372. Bradley T. Heim, LeeKai Lin. 2017. Does Health Reform Lead to an Increase in Early Retirement?
Evidence from Massachusetts. ILR Review 70:3, 704-732. [Crossref]
373. Allyson M. Drinkard. 2017. Predicting Prosociality Among Urban Adolescents. Youth & Society 49:4,
528-547. [Crossref]
374. María Cubel, Santiago Sanchez‐Pages. 2017. Gender Differences and Stereotypes in Strategic
Reasoning*. The Economic Journal 127:601, 728-756. [Crossref]
375. María Cubel, Santiago Sanchez‐Pages. 2017. Gender Differences and Stereotypes in Strategic
Reasoning*. The Economic Journal 127:601, 728-756. [Crossref]
376. Robson Braga, Luiz Paulo Lopes Fávero. 2017. Disposition Effect and Tolerance to Losses in Stock
Investment Decisions: An Experimental Study. Journal of Behavioral Finance 25, 1-10. [Crossref]
377. Sandro Casal, Nives DellaValle, Luigi Mittone, Ivan Soraperra. 2017. Feedback and efficient behavior.
PLOS ONE 12:4, e0175738. [Crossref]
378. Maria De Paola, Michela Ponzo, Vincenzo Scoppa. 2017. Gender differences in the propensity to apply
for promotion: evidence from the Italian Scientific Qualification. Oxford Economic Papers . [Crossref]
379. Sarah Morton, Julie A. Kmec. 2017. Risk-taking in the academic dual-hiring process: how risk shapes
later work experiences. Journal of Risk Research 82, 1-16. [Crossref]
380. Nic Flinkenflogel, Sheida Novin, Mariette Huizinga, Lydia Krabbendam. 2017. Gender Moderates the
Influence of Self-Construal Priming on Fairness Considerations. Frontiers in Psychology 8. . [Crossref]
381. Martin Abraham, Kerstin Lorek, Friedemann Richter, Matthias Wrede. 2017. Collusive tax evasion
and social norms. International Tax and Public Finance 24:2, 179-197. [Crossref]
382. Achim Buchwald. 2017. Competition, Outside Directors and Executive Turnover: Implications for
Corporate Governance in the EU. Managerial and Decision Economics 38:3, 365-381. [Crossref]
383. Shane Thompson. 2017. COLLEGE ADVISING AND GENDER. Economic Inquiry 55:2,
1007-1016. [Crossref]
384. Haukur Freyr Gylfason, Katrin Olafsdottir. 2017. Does Gneezy's cheap talk game measure trust?.
Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 67, 143-148. [Crossref]
385. Geert Bekaert, Kenton Hoyem, Wei-Yin Hu, Enrichetta Ravina. 2017. Who is internationally
diversified? Evidence from the 401(k) plans of 296 firms. Journal of Financial Economics 124:1, 86-112.
[Crossref]
386. Lukas Menkhoff, Sahra Sakha. 2017. Estimating risky behavior with multiple-item risk measures.
Journal of Economic Psychology 59, 59-86. [Crossref]
387. Oege Dijk. 2017. For whom does social comparison induce risk-taking?. Theory and Decision 82:4,
519-541. [Crossref]
388. Ismail El Haddioui, Mohamed Khaldi. 2017. Study of learner Behavior and Learning Styles on the
Adaptive Learning Management System Manhali: Results and Analysis According to Gender and
Academic Performance. Journal of Software 12:4, 212-216. [Crossref]
389. Paolo Crosetto, Antonio Filippin. 2017. The Sound of Others: Surprising Evidence of Conformist
Behavior. Southern Economic Journal 83:4, 1038-1051. [Crossref]
390. Marco Caliendo, Wang-Sheng Lee, Robert Mahlstedt. 2017. The gender wage gap and the role
of reservation wages: New evidence for unemployed workers. Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization 136, 161-173. [Crossref]
391. Isabel-Maria García-Sánchez, Jennifer Martínez-Ferrero, Emma García-Meca. 2017. Gender diversity,
financial expertise and its effects on accounting quality. Management Decision 55:2, 347-382.
[Crossref]
392. Matteo Migheli. 2017. The winner’s curse in auctions with losses. Mind & Society 17. . [Crossref]
393. Anne Jeny, Estefania Santacreu-Vasut. 2017. New avenues of research to explain the rarity of females
at the top of the accountancy profession. Palgrave Communications 3, 17011. [Crossref]
394. Tim Friehe, Hannah Schildberg-Hörisch. 2017. Self-control and crime revisited: Disentangling the
effect of self-control on risk taking and antisocial behavior. International Review of Law and Economics
49, 23-32. [Crossref]
395. Catherine Linney, Laurel Korologou-Linden, Anne Campbell. 2017. Maternal Competition in
Women. Human Nature 28:1, 92-116. [Crossref]
396. Jana Cahlíková, Lubomír Cingl. 2017. Risk preferences under acute stress. Experimental Economics
20:1, 209-236. [Crossref]
397. Susan Rebecca Fisk, Brennan J. Miller, Jon Overton. 2017. Why social status matters for
understanding the interrelationships between testosterone, economic risk-taking, and gender. Sociology
Compass 11:3, e12452. [Crossref]
398. Linda Babcock, Maria P. Recalde, Lise Vesterlund, Laurie Weingart. 2017. Gender Differences in
Accepting and Receiving Requests for Tasks with Low Promotability. American Economic Review
107:3, 714-747. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
399. Takanori Adachi, Takanori Hisada. 2017. Gender differences in entrepreneurship and
intrapreneurship: an empirical analysis. Small Business Economics 48:3, 447-486. [Crossref]
400. Nagore Iriberri, Pedro Rey-Biel. 2017. Stereotypes are only a threat when beliefs are reinforced: On the
sensitivity of gender differences in performance under competition to information provision. Journal
of Economic Behavior & Organization 135, 99-111. [Crossref]
401. Chris Dawson. 2017. The upside of pessimism − Biased beliefs and the paradox of the contented
female worker. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 135, 215-228. [Crossref]
402. Denis Davydov, Otto Florestedt, Jarkko Peltomäki, Marcus Schön. 2017. Portfolio performance across
genders and generations: The role of financial innovation. International Review of Financial Analysis
50, 44-51. [Crossref]
403. Nuria Reguera-Alvarado, Pilar de Fuentes, Joaquina Laffarga. 2017. Does Board Gender Diversity
Influence Financial Performance? Evidence from Spain. Journal of Business Ethics 141:2, 337-350.
[Crossref]
404. Loukas Balafoutas, Matthias Sutter. 2017. On the nature of guilt aversion: Insights from a new
methodology in the dictator game. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance 13, 9-15. [Crossref]
405. Agne Kajackaite, Uri Gneezy. 2017. Incentives and cheating. Games and Economic Behavior 102,
433-444. [Crossref]
406. Weiwei Chen, Wayne A. Grove, Andrew Hussey. 2017. The Role of Confidence and Noncognitive
Skills for Post-Baccalaureate Academic and Labor Market Outcomes. Journal of Economic Behavior
& Organization . [Crossref]
407. Daniel Avdic, Per Johansson. 2017. Absenteeism, Gender and the Morbidity-Mortality Paradox.
Journal of Applied Econometrics 32:2, 440-462. [Crossref]
408. Erdinc Filiz, R. Paul Battaglio. 2017. Personality and decision-making in public administration: the
five-factor model in cultural perspective. International Review of Administrative Sciences 83:1_suppl,
3-22. [Crossref]
409. Panu Poutvaara, Olli Ropponen. 2017. Shocking news and cognitive performance. European Journal
of Political Economy . [Crossref]
410. Raja Rajendra Timilsina, Koji Kotani, Yoshio Kamijo. 2017. Sustainability of common pool resources.
PLOS ONE 12:2, e0170981. [Crossref]
411. David Stanley. Gender, Generational Groups and Leadership 291-307. [Crossref]
412. Sami Ullah Bajwa, Khuram Shahzad, Haris Aslam. 2017. Exploring Big Five personality traits and
gender as predictors of entrepreneurs’ cognitive adaptability. Journal of Modelling in Management 12:1,
143-161. [Crossref]
413. Andrew C. Peterson, Sheng Zhang, Sien Hu, Herta H. Chao, Chiang-shan R. Li. 2017. The Effects
of Age, from Young to Middle Adulthood, and Gender on Resting State Functional Connectivity of
the Dopaminergic Midbrain. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 11. . [Crossref]
414. Vasiliki Gargalianou, Diemo Urbig, Arjen van Witteloostuijn. 2017. Cooperating or competing in
three languages: cultural accommodation or alienation?. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management 24:1,
167-191. [Crossref]
415. Petko Kusev, Harry Purser, Renata Heilman, Alex J. Cooke, Paul Van Schaik, Victoria Baranova, Rose
Martin, Peter Ayton. 2017. Understanding Risky Behavior: The Influence of Cognitive, Emotional
and Hormonal Factors on Decision-Making under Risk. Frontiers in Psychology 8. . [Crossref]
416. Paul B. McGuinness, João Paulo Vieito, Mingzhu Wang. 2017. The role of board gender and foreign
ownership in the CSR performance of Chinese listed firms. Journal of Corporate Finance 42, 75-99.
[Crossref]
417. Anthony Edo, Farid Toubal. 2017. Immigration and the gender wage gap. European Economic Review
92, 196-214. [Crossref]
418. Sandra Ludwig, Gerlinde Fellner-Röhling, Carmen Thoma. 2017. Do women have more shame than
men? An experiment on self-assessment and the shame of overestimating oneself. European Economic
Review 92, 31-46. [Crossref]
419. Sule Alan, Nazli Baydar, Teodora Boneva, Thomas F. Crossley, Seda Ertac. 2017. Transmission of
risk preferences from mothers to daughters. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 134, 60-77.
[Crossref]
420. Simen Markussen, Knut Røed. 2017. The gender gap in entrepreneurship – The role of peer effects.
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 134, 356-373. [Crossref]
421. Aleksandr Alekseev, Gary Charness, Uri Gneezy. 2017. Experimental methods: When and why
contextual instructions are important. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 134, 48-59.
[Crossref]
422. Christiana Yosevina Tercia, Thorsten Teichert. 2017. How consumers respond to incentivized word
of mouth: An examination across gender. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) . [Crossref]
423. Daniel Armeanu, Georgeta Vintilă, Ştefan Gherghina, Dan Petrache. 2017. Approaches on Correlation
between Board of Directors and Risk Management in Resilient Economies. Sustainability 9:2, 173.
[Crossref]
424. Sangeeta Kaur Singh, Lee Voon Kaen, Low Weng Hei, Amanda Villiers-Tuthill, Pascale Allotey,
Daniel D. Reidpath. 2017. Ecological perspectives on youth alcohol consumption in the Kuala Lumpur
conurbation: a place-based study in Malaysia. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health,
ahead of print. [Crossref]
425. Gemechu Aga, David Francis. 2017. As the market churns: productivity and firm exit in developing
countries. Small Business Economics 8. . [Crossref]
426. Sophie Clot, Charlotte Y. Stanton, Marc Willinger. 2017. Are impatient farmers more risk-averse?
Evidence from a lab-in-the-field experiment in rural Uganda. Applied Economics 49:2, 156-169.
[Crossref]
427. James Ted McDonald, Maria Rebecca Valenzuela. 2017. HOW DOES SKILLS MISMATCH
AFFECT REMITTANCES? A STUDY OF FILIPINO MIGRANT WORKERS. Contemporary
Economic Policy 35:1, 216-231. [Crossref]
428. Maria Lucia Stefani, Valerio Vacca. Credit Access for Small Firms in the Euro Area: Does Gender
Matter? 83-119. [Crossref]
429. D. Di Cagno, A. Galliera, W. Güth, N. Pace, L. Panaccione. 2017. Experience and gender effects in
acquisition experiment with value messages. Small Business Economics 48:1, 71-97. [Crossref]
430. Michael S. Finke, John S. Howe, Sandra J. Huston. 2017. Old Age and the Decline in Financial
Literacy. Management Science 63:1, 213-230. [Crossref]
431. Liuchuang Li, Baolei Qi, Gaoliang Tian, Guochang Zhang. 2017. The Contagion Effect of Low-
Quality Audits at the Level of Individual Auditors. The Accounting Review 92:1, 137-163. [Crossref]
432. U. Gneezy, A. Imas. Lab in the Field 439-464. [Crossref]
433. Matteo M. Galizzi, Marisa Miraldo. 2017. Are You What You Eat? Healthy Behaviour and Risk
Preferences. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 17:1. . [Crossref]
434. Coren L. Apicella, Alyssa N. Crittenden, Victoria A. Tobolsky. 2017. Hunter-gatherer males are more
risk-seeking than females, even in late childhood. Evolution and Human Behavior . [Crossref]
435. Philip J. Grossman, Andrew Luccasen. Charity 1-7. [Crossref]
436. Shuyuan Mary Ho, Paul Benjamin Lowry, Merrill Warkentin, Yanyun Yang, Jonathan M. Hollister.
2017. Gender deception in asynchronous online communication: A path analysis. Information
Processing & Management 53:1, 21-41. [Crossref]
437. Carlos Cueva, R Edward Roberts, Tom J Spencer, Nisha Rani, Michelle Tempest, Philippe N Tobler,
Joe Herbert, Aldo Rustichini. 2017. Testosterone administration does not affect men's rejections of
low ultimatum game offers or aggressive mood. Hormones and Behavior 87, 1-7. [Crossref]
438. Werner Bönte, Vivien D. Procher, Diemo Urbig, Martin Voracek. 2017. Digit Ratio (2D:4D) Predicts
Self-Reported Measures of General Competitiveness, but Not Behavior in Economic Experiments.
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 11. . [Crossref]
439. Isabelle Brocas, Juan D. Carrillo, Ryan Kendall. 2017. Stress Induces Contextual Blindness in Lotteries
and Coordination Games. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 11. . [Crossref]
440. Alex Krumer. 2017. On Winning Probabilities, Weight Categories, and Home Advantage in
Professional Judo. Journal of Sports Economics 18:1, 77-96. [Crossref]
441. Tian Lan, Ying-yi Hong, Pablo Brañas-Garza. 2017. Norm, gender, and bribe-giving: Insights from
a behavioral game. PLOS ONE 12:12, e0189995. [Crossref]
442. Ratna Sahay, Martin Cihak, Papa N'Diaye, Adolfo Barajas, Annette Kyobe, Srobona Mitra, Yen Mooi,
Reza Yousefi. 2017. Banking on Women Leaders: A Case for More?. IMF Working Papers 17:199,
1. [Crossref]
443. Fitriya Fauzi, Abdul Basyith, Poh-Ling Ho. 2017. Women on boardroom: Does it create risk?. Cogent
Economics & Finance 5:1. . [Crossref]
444. Manuchehr Irandoust. 2017. Factors Associated With Financial Risk Tolerance Based on Proportional
Odds Model: Evidence From Sweden. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning 28:1, 155-164.
[Crossref]
445. Qianwen Bi, Michael Finke, Sandra J. Huston. 2017. Financial Software Use and Retirement Savings.
Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning 28:1, 107-128. [Crossref]
446. Leonardo Becchetti, Luisa Corrado, Maurizio Fiaschetti. 2016. The regional heterogeneity of
wellbeing ‘expenditure’ preferences: evidence from a simulated allocation choice on the BES indicators.
Journal of Economic Geography lbw042. [Crossref]
447. Iñigo Iturbe-Ormaetxe, Giovanni Ponti, Josefa Tomás. 2016. Myopic Loss Aversion under Ambiguity
and Gender Effects. PLOS ONE 11:12, e0161477. [Crossref]
448. Maroussia Favre, Amrei Wittwer, Hans Rudolf Heinimann, Vyacheslav I. Yukalov, Didier Sornette.
2016. Quantum Decision Theory in Simple Risky Choices. PLOS ONE 11:12, e0168045. [Crossref]
449. Claudia C. M. Molema, G. C. Wanda Wendel-Vos, Lisanne Puijk, Jørgen Dejgaard Jensen, A.
Jantine Schuit, G. Ardine de Wit. 2016. A systematic review of financial incentives given in the
healthcare setting; do they effectively improve physical activity levels?. BMC Sports Science, Medicine
and Rehabilitation 8:1. . [Crossref]
450. Robert Nuscheler, Kerstin Roeder. 2016. To Vaccinate or to Procrastinate? That is the Prevention
Question. Health Economics 25:12, 1560-1581. [Crossref]
451. Giovanni Di Bartolomeo, Stefano Papa. 2016. Does collective meditation foster trust and
trustworthiness in an investment game?. International Review of Economics 63:4, 379-392. [Crossref]
452. Robert G. Hammond, Thayer Morrill. 2016. Personality traits and bidding behavior in competing
auctions. Journal of Economic Psychology 57, 39-55. [Crossref]
453. Matteo M. Galizzi, Marisa Miraldo, Charitini Stavropoulou, Marjon van der Pol. 2016. Doctor–patient
differences in risk and time preferences: A field experiment. Journal of Health Economics 50, 171-182.
[Crossref]
454. Gilles Grolleau, Martin G. Kocher, Angela Sutan. 2016. Cheating and Loss Aversion: Do People
Cheat More to Avoid a Loss?. Management Science 62:12, 3428-3438. [Crossref]
455. Julie A. Nelson. 2016. Male Is a Gender, Too: A Review of Why Gender Matters in Economics by
Mukesh Eswaran. Journal of Economic Literature 54:4, 1362-1376. [Abstract] [View PDF article]
[PDF with links]
456. Vladimir Otrachshenko, Olga Popova, José Tavares. 2016. Psychological costs of currency transition:
evidence from the euro adoption. European Journal of Political Economy 45, 89-100. [Crossref]
457. Theresa Treffers, Philipp D. Koellinger, Arnold Picot. 2016. Do Affective States Influence Risk
Preferences?. Schmalenbach Business Review 17:3-4, 309-335. [Crossref]
458. Yuval Arbel, Ronen Bar-El, Yossef Tobol. 2016. Fundraising to a real-life public good – evidence from
the laboratory. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 65, 27-37. [Crossref]
459. Z. Hari, A. Anuar, M. Z. Mokhtar, R. Mokhtar. Evaluating engineering students performance in
physics courses during foundation studies 214-217. [Crossref]
460. Othon M. Moreno, Yaroslav Rosokha. 2016. Learning under compound risk vs. learning under
ambiguity – an experiment. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 53:2-3, 137-162. [Crossref]
461. David W. Johnston, Sonja C. Kassenboehmer, Michael A. Shields. 2016. Financial decision-making
in the household: Exploring the importance of survey respondent, health, cognitive ability and
personality. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 132, 42-61. [Crossref]
462. Anna Fountain Clark. 2016. Toward an Entrepreneurial Public Sector. Public Personnel Management
45:4, 335-359. [Crossref]
463. Sabrina Artinger, Nir Vulkan. 2016. Does Group Size Matter for Behavior in Online Trust Dilemmas?.
PLOS ONE 11:11, e0166279. [Crossref]
464. Manuel I. Ibáñez, Gerardo Sabater-Grande, Iván Barreda-Tarrazona, Laura Mezquita, Sandra
López-Ovejero, Helena Villa, Pandelis Perakakis, Generós Ortet, Aurora García-Gallego, Nikolaos
Georgantzís. 2016. Take the Money and Run: Psychopathic Behavior in the Trust Game. Frontiers
in Psychology 7. . [Crossref]
465. Benoît Lecat, Eric Le Fur, J. François Outreville. 2016. Perceived risk and the willingness to buy
and pay for “corked” bottles of wine. International Journal of Wine Business Research 28:4, 286-307.
[Crossref]
466. Rosalba Morese, Daniela Rabellino, Fabio Sambataro, Felice Perussia, Maria Consuelo Valentini,
Bruno G. Bara, Francesca M. Bosco. 2016. Group Membership Modulates the Neural Circuitry
Underlying Third Party Punishment. PLOS ONE 11:11, e0166357. [Crossref]
467. Riccardo Pansini, Lei Shi, Rui-Wu Wang. 2016. Women Tend to Defect in a Social Dilemma Game
in Southwest China. PLOS ONE 11:11, e0166101. [Crossref]
468. Salvador Carmona, Mahmoud Ezzamel, Claudia Mogotocoro. 2016. Gender, Management Styles, and
Forms of Capital. Journal of Business Ethics . [Crossref]
469. Hong Luo, Yongliang Zeng, Linyu Wan, Yali Shen. 2016. Executive heterogeneity, pay bandwagon,
and earnings management. Nankai Business Review International 7:4, 426-450. [Crossref]
470. Béatrice Boulu-Reshef, Irene Comeig, Robert Donze, Gregory D. Weiss. 2016. Risk aversion in
prediction markets: A framed-field experiment. Journal of Business Research 69:11, 5071-5075.
[Crossref]
471. Elena Claudia Meroni, Giovanni Abbiati. 2016. How do students react to longer instruction time?
Evidence from Italy †. Education Economics 24:6, 592-611. [Crossref]
472. Patrick Ring, Levent Neyse, Tamas David-Barett, Ulrich Schmidt. 2016. Gender Differences in
Performance Predictions: Evidence from the Cognitive Reflection Test. Frontiers in Psychology 7. .
[Crossref]
473. Antonio Filippin, Paolo Crosetto. 2016. A Reconsideration of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes.
Management Science 62:11, 3138-3160. [Crossref]
474. J. François Outreville, Jean Desrochers. 2016. Perceived risk: an experimental investigation of
consumer behavior when buying wine. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 15:6, 549-559. [Crossref]
475. Briggs Depew, Ozkan Eren. 2016. Born on the wrong day? School entry age and juvenile crime.
Journal of Urban Economics 96, 73-90. [Crossref]
476. José Santiago Arroyo Mina, Daniel A. Revollo Fernández, Alonso Aguilar Ibarra, Nikolaos
Georgantzis. 2016. Economic behavior of fishers under climate-related uncertainty: Results from field
experiments in Mexico and Colombia. Fisheries Research 183, 304-317. [Crossref]
477. Li Hao, Daniel Houser, Lei Mao, Marie Claire Villeval. 2016. Migrations, risks, and uncertainty: A
field experiment in China. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 131, 126-140. [Crossref]
478. Mario Daniele Amore, Orsola Garofalo. 2016. Executive gender, competitive pressures, and corporate
performance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 131, 308-327. [Crossref]
479. Lars Ivar Oppedal Berge, Kartika Sari Juniwaty, Linda Helgesson Sekei. 2016. Gender composition
and group dynamics: Evidence from a laboratory experiment with microfinance clients. Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization 131, 1-20. [Crossref]
480. Anja Dieckmann, Veronika Grimm, Matthias Unfried, Verena Utikal, Lorenzo Valmasoni. 2016.
On trust in honesty and volunteering among Europeans: Cross-country evidence on perceptions and
behavior. European Economic Review 90, 225-253. [Crossref]
481. Subhasish M. Chowdhury, Joo Young Jeon, Abhijit Ramalingam. 2016. Identity and group conflict.
European Economic Review 90, 107-121. [Crossref]
482. Henning Finseraas, Åshild A. Johnsen, Andreas Kotsadam, Gaute Torsvik. 2016. Exposure to female
colleagues breaks the glass ceiling—Evidence from a combined vignette and field experiment. European
Economic Review 90, 363-374. [Crossref]
483. Guillaume Beaurain, David Masclet. 2016. Does affirmative action reduce gender discrimination and
enhance efficiency? New experimental evidence. European Economic Review 90, 350-362. [Crossref]
484. Matthias Heinz, Hans-Theo Normann, Holger A. Rau. 2016. How competitiveness may cause a
gender wage gap: Experimental evidence. European Economic Review 90, 336-349. [Crossref]
485. Pradeep Kumar, Shashi Kant. 2016. Revealed social preferences and joint forest management
outcomes. Forest Policy and Economics 72, 37-45. [Crossref]
486. T.K. Ahn, Loukas Balafoutas, Mongoljin Batsaikhan, Francisco Campos-Ortiz, Louis Putterman,
Matthias Sutter. 2016. Securing property rights: A dilemma experiment in Austria, Mexico,
Mongolia, South Korea and the United States. Journal of Public Economics 143, 115-124. [Crossref]
487. Alessandra Capezio, Astghik Mavisakalyan. 2016. Women in the boardroom and fraud: Evidence from
Australia. Australian Journal of Management 41:4, 719-734. [Crossref]
488. Claudia Olivetti, Barbara Petrongolo. 2016. The Evolution of Gender Gaps in Industrialized Countries.
Annual Review of Economics 8:1, 405-434. [Crossref]
489. Gustav Tinghög, David Andersson, Caroline Bonn, Magnus Johannesson, Michael Kirchler, Lina
Koppel, Daniel Västfjäll. 2016. Intuition and Moral Decision-Making – The Effect of Time Pressure
and Cognitive Load on Moral Judgment and Altruistic Behavior. PLOS ONE 11:10, e0164012.
[Crossref]
490. David Whynes, Tracey Sach. 2016. Sex, benevolence and willingness to pay for screening. International
Journal of Social Economics 43:10, 982-997. [Crossref]
491. María Arrazola, José de Hevia. 2016. The Gender Wage Gap in Offered, Observed, and Reservation
Wages for Spain. Feminist Economics 22:4, 101-128. [Crossref]
492. JAMES FARRELL, DANIEL SHOAG. 2016. Asset management in public DB and non-DB Pension
Plans. Journal of Pension Economics and Finance 15:04, 379-406. [Crossref]
493. Michaël Tatham, Michael W. Bauer. 2016. The State, the Economy, and the Regions: Theories of
Preference Formation in Times of Crisis. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 26:4,
631-646. [Crossref]
494. Neil Harrison, Steve Agnew. 2016. Individual and Social Influences on Students’ Attitudes to Debt: a
Cross-National Path Analysis Using Data from England and New Zealand. Higher Education Quarterly
70:4, 332-353. [Crossref]
495. Paul M. Guest. 2016. Executive Mobility and Minority Status. Industrial Relations: A Journal of
Economy and Society 55:4, 604-631. [Crossref]
496. Alexandra Guisinger. 2016. Information, Gender, and Differences in Individual Preferences for Trade.
Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 37:4, 538-561. [Crossref]
497. Natascha Wagner, Matthias Rieger, Katherine Voorvelt. 2016. Gender, ethnicity and teaching
evaluations: Evidence from mixed teaching teams. Economics of Education Review 54, 79-94. [Crossref]
498. Noémi Berlin, Marie-Pierre Dargnies. 2016. Gender differences in reactions to feedback and
willingness to compete. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 130, 320-336. [Crossref]
499. Alicia Gómez Martínez, María Rosa López Mejía. 2016. Diferencias de género en la aprobación de
créditos comerciales a la PYME mexicana. Contaduría y Administración 61:4, 777-793. [Crossref]
500. Johannes Lohse. 2016. Smart or selfish – When smart guys finish nice. Journal of Behavioral and
Experimental Economics 64, 28-40. [Crossref]
501. Bernd Hayo, Stefan Voigt. 2016. Explaining constitutional change: The case of judicial independence.
International Review of Law and Economics 48, 1-13. [Crossref]
502. Leonith Hinojosa, Eric F. Lambin, Naoufel Mzoughi, Claude Napoléone. 2016. Place attachment as a
factor of mountain farming permanence: A survey in the French Southern Alps. Ecological Economics
130, 308-315. [Crossref]
503. Benjamin Artz, Sarinda Taengnoi. 2016. Do women prefer female bosses?. Labour Economics 42,
194-202. [Crossref]
504. Justyna Przychodzen, Fernando Gómez-Bezares, Wojciech Przychodzen, Mikel Larreina. 2016. ESG
Issues among Fund Managers—Factors and Motives. Sustainability 8:10, 1078. [Crossref]
505. Paolo Crosetto, Antonio Filippin. 2016. A theoretical and experimental appraisal of four risk elicitation
methods. Experimental Economics 19:3, 613-641. [Crossref]
506. John Ifcher, Homa Zarghamee. 2016. Pricing competition: a new laboratory measure of gender
differences in the willingness to compete. Experimental Economics 19:3, 642-662. [Crossref]
507. Tomomi Tanaka, Colin F. Camerer. 2016. Trait perceptions influence economic out-group bias: lab
and field evidence from Vietnam. Experimental Economics 19:3, 513-534. [Crossref]
508. Hilke Brockmann, Philipp Genschel, Laura Seelkopf. 2016. Happy taxation: increasing tax compliance
through positive rewards?. Journal of Public Policy 36:03, 381-406. [Crossref]
509. Daniel Revollo-Fernández, Alonso Aguilar-Ibarra, Fiorenza Micheli, Andrea Sáenz-Arroyo. 2016.
Exploring the role of gender in common-pool resource extraction: evidence from laboratory and field
experiments in fisheries. Applied Economics Letters 23:13, 912-920. [Crossref]
510. Nadia Simoes, Nuno Crespo, Sandrina B. Moreira. 2016. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINANTS OF
SELF-EMPLOYMENT ENTRY: WHAT DO WE REALLY KNOW?. Journal of Economic Surveys
30:4, 783-806. [Crossref]
511. Uwe Dulleck, Juliana Silva-Goncalves, Benno Torgler. 2016. Evaluation of an Incentive Program on
Educational Achievement of Indigenous Students. Economic Record 92:298, 329-347. [Crossref]
512. Thomas Buser, Anna Dreber. 2016. The Flipside of Comparative Payment Schemes. Management
Science 62:9, 2626-2638. [Crossref]
513. Werner Bönte, Vivien D. Procher, Diemo Urbig. 2016. Biology and Selection Into Entrepreneurship-
The Relevance of Prenatal Testosterone Exposure. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 40:5,
1121-1148. [Crossref]
514. Alison L. Booth. 2016. Gender in economics: A story in the making. Economic Analysis and Policy
51, 122-129. [Crossref]
515. Kamila Vieira de Mendonça, Ricardo Brito Soares. 2016. Trajetória de crescimento para
microempreendedores: diferencial de gênero dos clientes do programa crediamigo. Estudos Econômicos
(São Paulo) 46:3, 701-731. [Crossref]
516. Tzahit Simon-Tuval, Amir Shmueli, Ilana Harman-Boehm. 2016. Adherence to Self-Care Behaviors
among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes—The Role of Risk Preferences. Value in Health 19:6, 844-851.
[Crossref]
517. Jinsoo Hwang, Heesup Han. 2016. Are other customer perceptions important at casino table games?
Their impact on emotional responses and word-of-mouth by gender. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing 7, 1-12. [Crossref]
518. Joana Marinova, Janneke Plantenga, Chantal Remery. 2016. Gender diversity and firm performance:
evidence from Dutch and Danish boardrooms. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management 27:15, 1777-1790. [Crossref]
519. Rajeev Darolia, Cory Koedel, Paco Martorell, Katie Wilson, Francisco Perez-Arce. 2016. Race and
gender effects on employer interest in job applicants: new evidence from a resume field experiment.
Applied Economics Letters 23:12, 853-856. [Crossref]
520. Kun Zhao, Eamonn Ferguson, Luke D. Smillie. 2016. Prosocial Personality Traits Differentially
Predict Egalitarianism, Generosity, and Reciprocity in Economic Games. Frontiers in Psychology 7. .
[Crossref]
521. Mara Faccio, Maria-Teresa Marchica, Roberto Mura. 2016. CEO gender, corporate risk-taking, and
the efficiency of capital allocation. Journal of Corporate Finance 39, 193-209. [Crossref]
522. Monica C. Schneider, Mirya R. Holman, Amanda B. Diekman, Thomas McAndrew. 2016. Power,
Conflict, and Community: How Gendered Views of Political Power Influence Women's Political
Ambition. Political Psychology 37:4, 515-531. [Crossref]
523. Ingvild Almås, Alexander W. Cappelen, Kjell G. Salvanes, Erik Ø. Sørensen, Bertil Tungodden. 2016.
Willingness to Compete: Family Matters. Management Science 62:8, 2149-2162. [Crossref]
524. Christina E. Bannier, Milena Neubert. 2016. Gender differences in financial risk taking: The role of
financial literacy and risk tolerance. Economics Letters 145, 130-135. [Crossref]
525. Chih-Shun Hsu, Lopin Kuo, Bao-guang Chang. 2016. Non-linear relationship between gender
diversity in the partnership and profit performance in accounting firms. Pacific Accounting Review 28:3,
306-336. [Crossref]
526. Miloš Fišar, Matúš Kubák, Jiři Špalek, James Tremewan. 2016. Gender differences in beliefs and
actions in a framed corruption experiment. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 63,
69-82. [Crossref]
527. Arjen De Wit, René Bekkers. 2016. Exploring Gender Differences in Charitable Giving. Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 45:4, 741-761. [Crossref]
528. Susan R. Fisk. Gender Stereotypes, Risk-Taking, and Gendered Mobility 179-210. [Crossref]
529. Mehmet Nihat Solakoglu, Nazmi Demir. 2016. The role of firm characteristics on the relationship
between gender diversity and firm performance. Management Decision 54:6, 1407-1419. [Crossref]
530. Jussi Palomäki, Jeff Yan, David Modic, Michael Laakasuo. 2016. "To Bluff like a Man or Fold like a
Girl?" – Gender Biased Deceptive Behavior in Online Poker. PLOS ONE 11:7, e0157838. [Crossref]
531. Maria Hullgren, Inga-Lill Söderberg. 2016. Borrower characteristics and mortgage rate choice in
Sweden. International Journal of Bank Marketing 34:5, 649-669. [Crossref]
532. Jun Xu. 2016. Patriarchy, Gendered Spheres, or Evolutionary Adaptation? A Cross-National
Examination of Adolescent Boys and Girls Access to Home Resources. Chinese Sociological Review
48:3, 209-247. [Crossref]
533. Loukas Balafoutas, Brent J. Davis, Matthias Sutter. 2016. Affirmative action or just discrimination?
A study on the endogenous emergence of quotas. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 127,
87-98. [Crossref]
534. Luc Arrondel, Nicolas Frémeaux. 2016. ‘For Richer, For Poorer’: Assortative Mating and Savings
Preferences. Economica 83:331, 518-543. [Crossref]
535. Anne Campbell, Claire Coombes, Raluca David, Adrian Opre, Lois Grayson, Steven Muncer. 2016.
Sex differences are not attenuated by a sex-invariant measure of fear: The situated fear questionnaire.
Personality and Individual Differences 97, 210-219. [Crossref]
536. J. Samuel Baixauli-Soler, Maria Belda-Ruiz, Gregorio Sanchez-Marin. 2016. An executive hierarchy
analysis of stock options: Does gender matter?. Review of Managerial Science 58. . [Crossref]
537. Maria Gabriella Baldarelli, Mara Del Baldo, Stefania Vignini. 2016. Pink accounting in Italy: cultural
perspectives over discrimination and/or lack of interest. Meditari Accountancy Research 24:2, 269-292.
[Crossref]
538. Sanjiv Erat, Uri Gneezy. 2016. Incentives for creativity. Experimental Economics 19:2, 269-280.
[Crossref]
539. Aurélie Cassette, Etienne Farvaque. 2016. A dirty deed done dirt cheap: Reporting the blame of a
national reform on local politicians. European Journal of Political Economy 43, 127-144. [Crossref]
540. Na Zhao, Jianxin Zhang. 2016. Gender differences in trusting strangers: Role of the target's gender.
PsyCh Journal 5:2, 83-91. [Crossref]
541. Renée B. Adams. 2016. Women on boards: The superheroes of tomorrow?. The Leadership Quarterly
27:3, 371-386. [Crossref]
542. Johannes Diederich, Timo Goeschl, Israel Waichman. 2016. Group size and the (in)efficiency of pure
public good provision. European Economic Review 85, 272-287. [Crossref]
543. Lauren Banko, Eva Marikova Leeds, Michael A. Leeds. 2016. Gender Differences in Response to
Setbacks: Evidence from Professional Tennis*. Social Science Quarterly 97:2, 161-176. [Crossref]
544. Manuel Förster, Sebastian Brückner, Klaus Beck, Olga Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, Roland Happ. 2016.
Individuelle und kontextuelle Prädiktoren des Fachwissenserwerbs zum Internen Rechnungswesen im
Hochschulstudium. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 19:2, 375-393. [Crossref]
545. Steven R. Beckman, Gregory DeAngelo, W. James Smith, Ning Wang. 2016. Is social choice gender-
neutral? Reference dependence and sexual selection in decisions toward risk and inequality. Journal of
Risk and Uncertainty 52:3, 191-211. [Crossref]
546. Eleanor Brown, Debra J. Mesch, Amir Daniel Hayat. 2016. Life Expectancy and the Search for a Bag
Lady Effect in Charitable Giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 45:3, 630-645. [Crossref]
547. Juanna Schrøter Joensen, Helena Skyt Nielsen. 2016. Mathematics and Gender: Heterogeneity in
Causes and Consequences. The Economic Journal 126:593, 1129-1163. [Crossref]
548. Edwin Leuven, Marte Rønning. 2016. Classroom Grade Composition and Pupil Achievement. The
Economic Journal 126:593, 1164-1192. [Crossref]
549. Daniela Rabellino, Rosalba Morese, Angela Ciaramidaro, Bruno G. Bara, Francesca M. Bosco. 2016.
Third-party punishment: altruistic and anti-social behaviours in in-group and out-group settings.
Journal of Cognitive Psychology 28:4, 486-495. [Crossref]
550. Calvin Hubble, Jinger Zhao. 2016. Gender differences in marathon pacing and performance prediction.
Journal of Sports Analytics 2:1, 19-36. [Crossref]
551. Laura Chioda. A Closer Look at Dynamics within the Household 179-216. [Crossref]
552. Laura Chioda. Introduction: The Household Point of View 15-26. [Crossref]
553. Laura Chioda. Gender Differences in Earnings 153-176. [Crossref]
554. Wenqi Han, Andreas Hellmann, Meiting Lu. 2016. The impact of gender difference on the
interpretation of uncertainty expressions. Asian Review of Accounting 24:2, 185-201. [Crossref]
555. Ingvild Almås, Alexander W. Cappelen, Kjell G. Salvanes, Erik Ø. Sørensen, Bertil Tungodden.
2016. What Explains the Gender Gap in College Track Dropout? Experimental and Administrative
Evidence. American Economic Review 106:5, 296-302. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
556. Sonia Akter, Timothy J. Krupnik, Frederick Rossi, Fahmida Khanam. 2016. The influence of gender
and product design on farmers’ preferences for weather-indexed crop insurance. Global Environmental
Change 38, 217-229. [Crossref]
557. Johannes Gettinger, Michael Filzmoser, Sabine T. Koeszegi. 2016. Why can’t we settle again?
Analysis of factors that influence agreement prospects in the post-settlement phase. Journal of Business
Economics 86:4, 413-440. [Crossref]
558. Michael M. Atkinson, Dustin Rogers, Sara Olfert. 2016. Better Politicians: If We Pay, Will They
Come?. Legislative Studies Quarterly 41:2, 361-391. [Crossref]
559. Shipra Gupta, James W. Gentry. 2016. Construction of gender roles in perceived scarce environments
- Maintaining masculinity when shopping for fast fashion apparel. Journal of Consumer Behaviour
15:3, 251-260. [Crossref]
560. Simone Quercia. 2016. Eliciting and measuring betrayal aversion using the BDM mechanism. Journal
of the Economic Science Association 2:1, 48-59. [Crossref]
561. Regina M. Reinert, Florian Weigert, Christoph H. Winnefeld. 2016. Does female management
influence firm performance? Evidence from Luxembourg banks. Financial Markets and Portfolio
Management 30:2, 113-136. [Crossref]
562. Matteo Migheli. 2016. The sibling effect on the consumption of phone services. International Journal
of Consumer Studies 40:3, 319-326. [Crossref]
563. Ritwik Banerjee. 2016. Corruption, norm violation and decay in social capital. Journal of Public
Economics 137, 14-27. [Crossref]
564. Jianwei Hou, Kevin Elliott. 2016. Gender differences in online auctions. Electronic Commerce Research
and Applications 17, 123-133. [Crossref]
565. Nejat Anbarci, Jungmin Lee, Aydogan Ulker. 2016. Win at All Costs or Lose Gracefully in High-
Stakes Competition? Gender Differences in Professional Tennis. Journal of Sports Economics 17:4,
323-353. [Crossref]
566. Kristoffer W. Eriksen, Ola Kvaløy. 2016. No Guts, No Glory: An Experiment on Excessive Risk-
Taking. Review of Finance rfw016. [Crossref]
567. Markus Tepe. 2016. In Public Servants We Trust?: A behavioural experiment on public service
motivation and trust among students of public administration, business sciences and law. Public
Management Review 18:4, 508-538. [Crossref]
568. Fábio P. Pádua Júnior, Paulo H. M. Prado, Scott S. Roeder, Eduardo B. Andrade. 2016. What a
Smile Means: Contextual Beliefs and Facial Emotion Expressions in a Non-verbal Zero-Sum Game.
Frontiers in Psychology 7. . [Crossref]
569. Sudha Mathew, Salma Ibrahim, Stuart Archbold. 2016. Boards attributes that increase firm risk –
evidence from the UK. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society 16:2,
233-258. [Crossref]
570. Thomas Bossuroy, Clara Delavallade. 2016. Experiments, policy, and theory in development
economics: a response to Glenn Harrison’s ‘field experiments and methodological intolerance’. Journal
of Economic Methodology 23:2, 147-156. [Crossref]
571. Julie A. Nelson. 2016. Not-So-Strong Evidence for Gender Differences in Risk Taking. Feminist
Economics 22:2, 114-142. [Crossref]
572. Douglas Davis. 2016. Experimental Methods for the General Economist: Five Lessons from the Lab.
Southern Economic Journal 82:4, 1046-1058. [Crossref]
573. Nadav Goldschmied, Jason Kowalczyk. 2016. Gender Performance in the NCAA Rifle
Championships: Where is the Gap?. Sex Roles 74:7-8, 310-322. [Crossref]
574. Deep Mukherjee, Mohammad Arshad Rahman. 2016. To drill or not to drill? An econometric analysis
of US public opinion. Energy Policy 91, 341-351. [Crossref]
575. Saima Naeem, Asad Zaman. 2016. Charity and Gift Exchange: Cultural Effects. VOLUNTAS:
International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 27:2, 900-919. [Crossref]
576. Irene Comeig, Alfredo Grau-Grau, Ainhoa Jaramillo-Gutiérrez, Federico Ramírez. 2016. Gender, self-
confidence, sports, and preferences for competition. Journal of Business Research 69:4, 1418-1422.
[Crossref]
577. Maria De Paola, Francesca Gioia. 2016. Who performs better under time pressure? Results from a
field experiment. Journal of Economic Psychology 53, 37-53. [Crossref]
578. Quang Nguyen, Marie Claire Villeval, Hui Xu. 2016. Trust under the Prospect Theory and Quasi-
Hyperbolic Preferences: A Field Experiment in Vietnam. Economic Development and Cultural Change
64:3, 545-572. [Crossref]
579. Kjetil Bjorvatn, Ranveig Falch, Ulrikke Hernæs. 2016. Gender, context and competition: Experimental
evidence from rural and urban Uganda. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 61, 31-37.
[Crossref]
580. Amit Das, Habib Ullah Khan. 2016. Security behaviors of smartphone users. Information and
Computer Security 24:1, 116-134. [Crossref]
581. Elizabeth Cashdan, Steven J. C. Gaulin. 2016. Why Go There? Evolution of Mobility and Spatial
Cognition in Women and Men. Human Nature 27:1, 1-15. [Crossref]
582. Eleni Kopsida, Jonathan Berrebi, Predrag Petrovic, Martin Ingvar. 2016. Testosterone Administration
Related Differences in Brain Activation during the Ultimatum Game. Frontiers in Neuroscience 10. .
[Crossref]
583. Kyle T. Gagnon, Elizabeth A. Cashdan, Jeanine K. Stefanucci, Sarah H. Creem-Regehr. 2016. Sex
Differences in Exploration Behavior and the Relationship to Harm Avoidance. Human Nature 27:1,
82-97. [Crossref]
584. Ghazala Azmat, Nagore Iriberri. 2016. The Provision of Relative Performance Feedback: An Analysis
of Performance and Satisfaction. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 25:1, 77-110. [Crossref]
585. Nadia Loukil, Ouidad Yousfi. 2016. Does gender diversity on corporate boards increase risk-taking?.
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration 33:1,
66-81. [Crossref]
586. M. Heyns, S. Rothmann. 2016. Comparing trust levels of male and female managers: measurement
invariance of the behavioural trust inventory. South African Journal of Psychology 46:1, 74-87. [Crossref]
587. Chantal Toledo. 2016. Do Environmental Messages Work on the Poor? Experimental Evidence from
Brazilian Favelas. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 3:1, 37-83.
[Crossref]
588. Natalia López-Mosquera. 2016. Gender differences, theory of planned behavior and willingness to
pay. Journal of Environmental Psychology 45, 165-175. [Crossref]
589. Tali Mendelberg, Christopher F. Karpowitz. 2016. Power, Gender, and Group Discussion. Political
Psychology 37, 23-60. [Crossref]
590. Zahra Murad, Martin Sefton, Chris Starmer. 2016. How do risk attitudes affect measured confidence?.
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 52:1, 21-46. [Crossref]
591. Guoli Chen, Craig Crossland, Sterling Huang. 2016. Female board representation and corporate
acquisition intensity. Strategic Management Journal 37:2, 303-313. [Crossref]
592. Mohammad Tariqul Islam Khan, Siow-Hooi Tan, Lee-Lee Chong. 2016. Gender differences in
preferences for firm characteristics across different groups of investors. Qualitative Research in Financial
Markets 8:1, 2-15. [Crossref]
593. Rakesh Sarin, Alice Wieland. 2016. Risk aversion for decisions under uncertainty: Are there gender
differences?. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 60, 1-8. [Crossref]
594. Eric Cardella, Michael J. Seiler. 2016. The effect of listing price strategy on real estate negotiations:
An experimental study. Journal of Economic Psychology 52, 71-90. [Crossref]
595. Stephanie C. Lazzaro, Robb B. Rutledge, Daniel R. Burghart, Paul W. Glimcher. 2016. The Impact of
Menstrual Cycle Phase on Economic Choice and Rationality. PLOS ONE 11:1, e0144080. [Crossref]
596. Jonathan F. Schulz, Christian Thöni. 2016. Overconfidence and Career Choice. PLOS ONE 11:1,
e0145126. [Crossref]
597. Sylvia Kairouz, Catherine Paradis, Eva Monson. 2016. Gender, gambling settings and gambling
behaviours among undergraduate poker players. International Gambling Studies 16:1, 85-97. [Crossref]
598. Kris Hardies, Diane Breesch, Joël Branson. 2016. Do (Fe)Male Auditors Impair Audit Quality?
Evidence from Going-Concern Opinions. European Accounting Review 25:1, 7-34. [Crossref]
599. Robert O. Deaner, Vittorio Addona, Rickey E. Carter, Michael J. Joyner, Sandra K. Hunter. 2016.
Fast men slow more than fast women in a 10 kilometer road race. PeerJ 4, e2235. [Crossref]
600. Lucia F. Dunn, Ida A. Mirzaie. 2016. CONSUMER DEBT STRESS, CHANGES IN
HOUSEHOLD DEBT, AND THE GREAT RECESSION. Economic Inquiry 54:1, 201-214.
[Crossref]
601. Pamela Jakiela, Owen Ozier. 2016. Does Africa Need a Rotten Kin Theorem? Experimental Evidence
from Village Economies. The Review of Economic Studies 83:1, 231-268. [Crossref]
602. Claire O’Callaghan, Maxime Bertoux, Muireann Irish, James M. Shine, Stephanie Wong, Leonidas
Spiliopoulos, John R. Hodges, Michael Hornberger. 2016. Fair play: social norm compliance failures
in behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia. Brain 139:1, 204-216. [Crossref]
603. Charlene M. Kalenkoski, Gigi Foster. Are Women Better than Men at Multitasking Household
Production Activities? 19-32. [Crossref]
604. Kathleen A. O’Donnell, Judi Strebel, Gary Mortimer. 2016. The thrill of victory: Women and sport
shopping. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 28, 240-251. [Crossref]
605. Inga-Lill Söderberg. Gender Stereotyping in Financial Advisors’ Assessment of Customers 260-280.
[Crossref]
606. Benjamin F. Cummings, Michael A. Guillemette. Neuroscience and Consumer Finance 327-337.
[Crossref]
607. Wolfgang Buchholz, Michael Eichenseer. Prisoner’s Dilemma 1-5. [Crossref]
608. Dag Bennett, Diana Pérez-Bustamante, Carmelo Mercado-Idoeta. Work and Study Habits in the
Interconnected Age: What It Means for Businesses of the Future 135-151. [Crossref]
609. Theodore Bergstrom, Shane Parendo, Jon Sonstelie. 2016. Competition and Personality in a
Restaurant Entry Game. The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics 16:1. . [Crossref]
610. Mickael Beaud, Marc Willinger. 2016. Quels déterminants de la prise de risque? Les réponses de
l’économie expérimentale. L'Actualité économique 92:1-2, 49. [Crossref]
611. Francesca Maria Cesaroni, Annalisa Sentuti. 2016. Economic crisis, women entrepreneurs and bank
loans: some empirical evidence from Italy. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja 29:1, 1050-1061.
[Crossref]
612. Lone Engbo Christiansen, Huidan Lin, Joana Pereira, Petia Topalova, Rima Turk. 2016. Gender
Diversity in Senior Positions and Firm Performance: Evidence from Europe. IMF Working Papers
16:50, 1. [Crossref]
613. International Monetary Fund. 2016. Italy: Selected Issues. IMF Staff Country Reports 16:223, 1.
[Crossref]
614. Rey Dang, Duc Khuong Nguyen. 2016. Does Board Gender Diversity Make a Difference? New
Evidence from Quantile Regression Analysis. Management international 20:2, 95. [Crossref]
615. Dennis Barber, Yassaman Saadatmand, Thomas Kavoori. 2016. Gender and Financial Risk: The U.S.
and Brazil. Studies in Business and Economics 11:1. . [Crossref]
616. Daniel L. Hicks, Joan Hamory Hicks, Beatriz Maldonado. 2016. Women as policy makers and donors:
Female legislators and foreign aid. European Journal of Political Economy 41, 46-60. [Crossref]
617. Takashi Yamauchi, Jinsil Hwaryoung Seo, Noel Jett, Greg Parks, Casady Bowman. 2015. Gender
Differences in Mouse and Cursor Movements. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction
31:12, 911-921. [Crossref]
618. Desmond Lam. 2015. Gender Differences in Risk Aversion Among Chinese University Students.
Journal of Gambling Studies 31:4, 1405-1415. [Crossref]
619. Toni Schmader, Katharina Block. 2015. Engendering Identity: Toward a Clearer Conceptualization
of Gender as a Social Identity. Sex Roles 73:11-12, 474-480. [Crossref]
620. James A Peprah, Clifford Afoakwah, Isaac Koomson. 2015. Savings, entrepreneurial trait and self-
employment: evidence from selected Ghanaian Universities. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research
5:1. . [Crossref]
621. Gerhard Meisenberg, Michael A. Woodley. 2015. Gender Differences in Subjective Well-Being and
Their Relationships with Gender Equality. Journal of Happiness Studies 16:6, 1539-1555. [Crossref]
622. Emmanuel Dechenaux, Dan Kovenock, Roman M. Sheremeta. 2015. A survey of experimental
research on contests, all-pay auctions and tournaments. Experimental Economics 18:4, 609-669.
[Crossref]
623. Eleanor Martin, Judith Good. 2015. Strategy, team cohesion and team member satisfaction: The
effects of gender and group composition. Computers in Human Behavior 53, 536-543. [Crossref]
624. Jenny Säve-Söderbergh, Gabriella Sjögren Lindquist. 2015. Cildren do not behave like adults: Gender
gaps in performance and risktaking in a random social context in the high-stakes game shows Jeopardy
and Junior Jeopardy. The Economic Journal n/a-n/a. [Crossref]
625. Caleb Cox, Brock Stoddard. 2015. Framing and Feedback in Social Dilemmas with Partners and
Strangers. Games 6:4, 394-412. [Crossref]
626. Amalia Di Girolamo, Michalis Drouvelis. 2015. The role of gender composition and size of the group
in a minimum effort game. Economics Letters 137, 168-170. [Crossref]
627. Johan Almenberg, Anna Dreber. 2015. Gender, stock market participation and financial literacy.
Economics Letters 137, 140-142. [Crossref]
628. Oded Stark, Ewa Zawojska. 2015. Gender differentiation in risk-taking behavior: On the relative risk
aversion of single men and single women. Economics Letters 137, 83-87. [Crossref]
629. Christopher S. Cotton, Cheng Li, Frank McIntyre, Joseph P. Price. 2015. Which explanations for
gender differences in competition are consistent with a simple theoretical model?. Journal of Behavioral
and Experimental Economics 59, 56-67. [Crossref]
630. Eeva Alho. 2015. The effect of social bonding and identity on the decision to invest in food production.
Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 59, 47-55. [Crossref]
631. Zhuoqiong (Charlie) Chen, David Ong, Roman M. Sheremeta. 2015. The gender difference in the
value of winning. Economics Letters 137, 226-229. [Crossref]
632. Juan Pablo Torres, Camilo Drago, Claudio Aqueveque. 2015. Knowledge inflows effects on middle
managers’ ambidexterity and performance. Management Decision 53:10, 2303-2320. [Crossref]
633. Henrik Cronqvist, Alessandro Previtero, Stephan Siegel, Roderick E. White. 2015. The Fetal Origins
Hypothesis in Finance: Prenatal Environment, the Gender Gap, and Investor Behavior. Review of
Financial Studies hhv065. [Crossref]
634. Carlos Cueva, Aldo Rustichini. 2015. Is financial instability male-driven? Gender and cognitive skills
in experimental asset markets. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 119, 330-344. [Crossref]
635. Jan-Erik Lönnqvist, Markku Verkasalo, Gari Walkowitz, Philipp C. Wichardt. 2015. Measuring
individual risk attitudes in the lab: Task or ask? An empirical comparison. Journal of Economic Behavior
& Organization 119, 254-266. [Crossref]
636. Carina Cavalcanti, Andreas Leibbrandt. 2015. Dry promotions and community participation: Evidence
from a natural field experiment in Brazilian fishing villages. Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization 119, 457-465. [Crossref]
637. Shawn N. Geniole, Cody E. Cunningham, Amanda E. Keyes, Michael A. Busseri, Cheryl M.
McCormick. 2015. Costly retaliation is promoted by threats to resources in women and threats to
status in men. Aggressive Behavior 41:6, 515-525. [Crossref]
638. Trond U Halvorsen. 2015. Are dictators loss averse?. Rationality and Society 27:4, 469-491. [Crossref]
639. Iris Kesternich, Heiner Schumacher, Joachim Winter. 2015. Professional norms and physician
behavior: Homo oeconomicus or homo hippocraticus ?. Journal of Public Economics 131, 1-11.
[Crossref]
640. Rachida Justo, Dawn R. DeTienne, Philipp Sieger. 2015. Failure or voluntary exit? Reassessing the
female underperformance hypothesis. Journal of Business Venturing 30:6, 775-792. [Crossref]
641. Arnt O. Hopland, Ole Henning Nyhus. 2015. Does student satisfaction with school facilities affect
exam results?. Facilities 33:13/14, 760-774. [Crossref]
642. Aneela Salman. 2015. Green houses for terrorism: measuring the impact of gender equality attitudes
and outcomes as deterrents of terrorism. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal
Justice 39:4, 281-306. [Crossref]
643. Shu-Hui Lin, Chien-Ho Wang, Tsai-Ching Liu, Chin-Shyan Chen. 2015. Stroke: a Hidden Danger
of Margin Trading in Stock Markets. Journal of Urban Health 92:5, 995-1006. [Crossref]
644. Smriti Sharma. 2015. Gender and distributional preferences: Experimental evidence from India.
Journal of Economic Psychology 50, 113-123. [Crossref]
645. Ajay Palvia, Emilia Vähämaa, Sami Vähämaa. 2015. Are Female CEOs and Chairwomen More
Conservative and Risk Averse? Evidence from the Banking Industry During the Financial Crisis.
Journal of Business Ethics 131:3, 577-594. [Crossref]
646. René Böheim, Mario Lackner. 2015. Gender and risk taking: evidence from jumping competitions.
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 178:4, 883-902. [Crossref]
647. Øyvind Nystad Handberg, Arild Angelsen. 2015. Experimental tests of tropical forest conservation
measures. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 118, 346-359. [Crossref]
648. Marcel Fafchamps, Bereket Kebede, Daniel John Zizzo. 2015. Keep up with the winners: Experimental
evidence on risk taking, asset integration, and peer effects. European Economic Review 79, 59-79.
[Crossref]
649. Alexander W. Cappelen, Knut Nygaard, Erik Ø. Sørensen, Bertil Tungodden. 2015. Social Preferences
in the Lab: A Comparison of Students and a Representative Population. The Scandinavian Journal
of Economics 117:4, 1306-1326. [Crossref]
650. David Newton, Mikhail Simutin. 2015. Of Age, Sex, and Money: Insights from Corporate Officer
Compensation on the Wage Inequality Between Genders. Management Science 61:10, 2355-2375.
[Crossref]
651. Karen Khachatryan, Anna Dreber, Emma von Essen, Eva Ranehill. 2015. Gender and preferences at
a young age: Evidence from Armenia. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 118, 318-332.
[Crossref]
652. Matthias Sutter, Daniela Glätzle-Rützler. 2015. Gender Differences in the Willingness to Compete
Emerge Early in Life and Persist. Management Science 61:10, 2339-23354. [Crossref]
653. Arnaud Dupray, Stéphanie Moullet. 2015. Le salaire moindre des femmes : une question d’individu
ou de profession ?. Travail et emploi :144, 81-107. [Crossref]
654. Aparna Joshi, Jooyeon Son, Hyuntak Roh. 2015. When Can Women Close the Gap? A Meta-
Analytic Test of Sex Differences in Performance and Rewards. Academy of Management Journal 58:5,
1516-1545. [Crossref]
655. Ananish Chaudhuri, Amy Cruickshank, Erwann Sbai. 2015. Gender differences in personnel
management: Some experimental evidence. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 58,
20-32. [Crossref]
656. Vathunyoo Sila, Angelica Gonzalez, Jens Hagendorff. 2015. Women on board: Does boardroom gender
diversity affect firm risk?. Journal of Corporate Finance . [Crossref]
657. Maria De Paola, Francesca Gioia, Vincenzo Scoppa. 2015. Are females scared of competing with males?
Results from a field experiment. Economics of Education Review 48, 117-128. [Crossref]
658. Lasha Lanchava, Kyle Carlson, Blanka Šebánková, Jaroslav Flegr, Gideon Nave. 2015. No Evidence
of Association between Toxoplasma gondii Infection and Financial Risk Taking in Females. PLOS
ONE 10:9, e0136716. [Crossref]
659. Curtis R. Price, Roman M. Sheremeta. 2015. Endowment Origin, Demographic Effects, and
Individual Preferences in Contests. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 24:3, 597-619.
[Crossref]
660. Mark Power, Jonathan M. Hobbs. 2015. A Comparative Analysis of Financial Professionals’
Perception of the Level of Graduating Business Student Retirement Planning Familiarity, Motivation,
and Preparedness. Risk Management and Insurance Review 18:2, 273-295. [Crossref]
661. Sabrina Teyssier, Fabrice Etilé, Pierre Combris. 2015. Social- and self-image concerns in fair-trade
consumption. European Review of Agricultural Economics 42:4, 579-606. [Crossref]
662. Thomas Stöckl, Jürgen Huber, Michael Kirchler, Florian Lindner. 2015. Hot hand and gambler's
fallacy in teams: Evidence from investment experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
117, 327-339. [Crossref]
663. Margit I. Ruissen, Ellen R.A. de Bruijn. 2015. Is it me or is it you? Behavioral and electrophysiological
effects of oxytocin administration on self-other integration during joint task performance. Cortex 70,
146-154. [Crossref]
664. Tània Verge, Marc Guinjoan, Toni Rodon. 2015. Risk Aversion, Gender, and Constitutional Change.
Politics & Gender 11:03, 499-521. [Crossref]
665. Coren L. Apicella, Anna Dreber. 2015. Sex Differences in Competitiveness: Hunter-Gatherer Women
and Girls Compete Less in Gender-Neutral and Male-Centric Tasks. Adaptive Human Behavior and
Physiology 1:3, 247-269. [Crossref]
666. Bill Francis, Iftekhar Hasan, Jong Chool Park, Qiang Wu. 2015. Gender Differences in Financial
Reporting Decision Making: Evidence from Accounting Conservatism. Contemporary Accounting
Research 32:3, 1285-1318. [Crossref]
667. Zheng Fang, Chris Sakellariou. 2015. Glass Ceilings versus Sticky Floors: Evidence from Southeast
Asia and an International Update. Asian Economic Journal 29:3, 215-242. [Crossref]
668. Andreas Leibbrandt, John A. List. 2015. Do Women Avoid Salary Negotiations? Evidence from a
Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment. Management Science 61:9, 2016-2024. [Crossref]
669. Ornella Wanda Maietta. 2015. Determinants of university–firm R&D collaboration and its impact on
innovation: A perspective from a low-tech industry. Research Policy 44:7, 1341-1359. [Crossref]
670. Fernando Lourenço, Natalie Sappleton, Ranis Cheng. 2015. Gender and Business Ethics of Enterprise
Students and Nascent Entrepreneurs Engaged in Entrepreneurship Education. The Journal of
Entrepreneurship 24:2, 186-203. [Crossref]
671. Stefania Albanesi, Claudia Olivetti, María José Prados. Gender and Dynamic Agency: Theory and
Evidence on the Compensation of Top Executives 1-59. [Crossref]
672. Jyoti Rai, Jean Kimmel. Gender Differences in Risk Preferences: An Empirical Study using Attitudinal
and Behavioral Specifications of Risk Aversion 61-91. [Crossref]
673. Yu Xie, Michael Fang, Kimberlee Shauman. 2015. STEM Education. Annual Review of Sociology 41:1,
331-357. [Crossref]
674. Lin Xiu, Morley Gunderson. 2015. Occupational segregation and the gender earnings gap in China:
devils in the details. International Journal of Manpower 36:5, 711-732. [Crossref]
675. William G. Tierney, Michael Lanford. 2015. An investigation of the impact of international branch
campuses on organizational culture. Higher Education 70:2, 283-298. [Crossref]
676. JAMES D. FEARON, MACARTAN HUMPHREYS, JEREMY M. WEINSTEIN. 2015. How
Does Development Assistance Affect Collective Action Capacity? Results from a Field Experiment in
Post-Conflict Liberia. American Political Science Review 109:03, 450-469. [Crossref]
677. Cinzia Di Novi, Rowena Jacobs, Matteo Migheli. 2015. The Quality of Life of Female Informal
Caregivers: From Scandinavia to the Mediterranean Sea. European Journal of Population 31:3, 309-333.
[Crossref]
678. Chandra R. Bhat, Subodh K. Dubey, Kai Nagel. 2015. Introducing non-normality of latent
psychological constructs in choice modeling with an application to bicyclist route choice.
Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 78, 341-363. [Crossref]
679. David Pascual-Ezama, Toke R. Fosgaard, Juan Camilo Cardenas, Praveen Kujal, Robert Veszteg,
Beatriz Gil-Gómez de Liaño, Brian Gunia, Doris Weichselbaumer, Katharina Hilken, Armenak
Antinyan, Joyce Delnoij, Antonios Proestakis, Michael D. Tira, Yulius Pratomo, Tarek Jaber-López,
Pablo Brañas-Garza. 2015. Context-dependent cheating: Experimental evidence from 16 countries.
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 116, 379-386. [Crossref]
680. Henrik Cronqvist, Stephan Siegel, Frank Yu. 2015. Value versus growth investing: Why do different
investors have different styles?. Journal of Financial Economics 117:2, 333-349. [Crossref]
681. Linda Kamas, Anne Preston. 2015. Can social preferences explain gender differences in economic
behavior?. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 116, 525-539. [Crossref]
682. Jeroen Nieboer. 2015. Group member characteristics and risk taking by consensus. Journal of
Behavioral and Experimental Economics 57, 81-88. [Crossref]
683. Christian Zepp, Jens Kleinert. 2015. Homogeneity of Prototypical Attributes in Soccer Teams. SAGE
Open 5:3, 215824401560251. [Crossref]
684. Tânia Menezes Montenegro, Filomena Antunes Bras. 2015. Audit quality: does gender composition
of audit firms matter?. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting / Revista Española de Financiación
y Contabilidad 44:3, 264-297. [Crossref]
685. Julie A. Nelson. 2015. ARE WOMEN REALLY MORE RISK-AVERSE THAN MEN? A RE-
ANALYSIS OF THE LITERATURE USING EXPANDED METHODS. Journal of Economic
Surveys 29:3, 566-585. [Crossref]
686. Andreas C. Drichoutis, Rodolfo M. Nayga. 2015. Do risk and time preferences have biological roots?.
Southern Economic Journal 82:1, 235-256. [Crossref]
687. WERNER D. KRISTJANPOLLER, JOSEPHINE E. OLSON. 2015. The effect of financial
knowledge and demographic variables on passive and active investment in Chile's pension plan. Journal
of Pension Economics and Finance 14:03, 293-314. [Crossref]
688. Nina Jalava, Juanna Schrøter Joensen, Elin Pellas. 2015. Grades and rank: Impacts of non-financial
incentives on test performance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 115, 161-196. [Crossref]
689. Nikolaos Korfiatis, Roberto Zicari, Miltiadis D. Lytras. 2015. Gender effects and cooperation styles
in the Facebook community: A quasi-experimental assessment. Computers in Human Behavior 48,
44-50. [Crossref]
690. Gianna Lotito, Matteo Migheli, Guido Ortona. 2015. An Experimental Inquiry into the Nature of
Relational Goods, and Their Impact on Co-operation. Group Decision and Negotiation 24:4, 699-722.
[Crossref]
691. Arthur Schram, Gary Charness. 2015. Inducing Social Norms in Laboratory Allocation Choices.
Management Science 61:7, 1531-1546. [Crossref]
692. Nic Cheeseman. 2015. “No Bourgeoisie, No Democracy”? The Political Attitudes of the Kenyan
Middle Class. Journal of International Development 27:5, 647-664. [Crossref]
693. Kristin Kanthak, Jonathan Woon. 2015. Women Don't Run? Election Aversion and Candidate Entry.
American Journal of Political Science 59:3, 595-612. [Crossref]
694. Jan Luca Pletzer, Romina Nikolova, Karina Karolina Kedzior, Sven Constantin Voelpel. 2015. Does
Gender Matter? Female Representation on Corporate Boards and Firm Financial Performance - A
Meta-Analysis. PLOS ONE 10:6, e0130005. [Crossref]
695. Amirsam Khataei, Ali Arya. 2015. Personalized presentation builder for persuasive communication.
Communication Design Quarterly Review 3:3, 25-32. [Crossref]
696. Juan Fernández. 2015. The impact of gender diversity in foreign subsidiaries’ innovation outputs.
International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship 7:2, 148-167. [Crossref]
697. Uwe Jirjahn, Vanessa Lange. 2015. Reciprocity and Workers’ Tastes for Representation. Journal of
Labor Research 36:2, 188-209. [Crossref]
698. Emel Filiz-Ozbay, Jonathan Guryan, Kyle Hyndman, Melissa Kearney, Erkut Y. Ozbay. 2015. Do
lottery payments induce savings behavior? Evidence from the lab. Journal of Public Economics 126,
1-24. [Crossref]
699. Arleta Rasmußen. 2015. Reporting behavior: a literature review of experimental studies. Central
European Journal of Operations Research 23:2, 283-311. [Crossref]
700. Thomas de Haan, Roel van Veldhuizen. 2015. Willpower Depletion and Framing Effects. Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization . [Crossref]
701. Binglin Gong, Huibin Yan, Chun-Lei Yang. 2015. Gender differences in the dictator experiment:
evidence from the matrilineal Mosuo and the patriarchal Yi. Experimental Economics 18:2, 302-313.
[Crossref]
702. Vanessa Mertins, Wolfgang Hoffeld. 2015. Do Overconfident Workers Cooperate Less? The
Relationship Between Overconfidence and Cooperation in Team Production. Managerial and Decision
Economics 36:4, 265-274. [Crossref]
703. Christian Grund. 2015. Gender pay gaps among highly educated professionals — Compensation
components do matter. Labour Economics 34, 118-126. [Crossref]
704. Tsegaye T. Gatiso, Björn Vollan, Ernst-August Nuppenau. 2015. Resource scarcity and democratic
elections in commons dilemmas: An experiment on forest use in Ethiopia. Ecological Economics 114,
199-207. [Crossref]
705. Cathy Parker, Stuart Roper, Dominic Medway. 2015. Back to basics in the marketing of place: the
impact of litter upon place attitudes. Journal of Marketing Management 1-23. [Crossref]
706. Jan-Erik Lönnqvist, Heike Hennig-Schmidt, Gari Walkowitz. 2015. Ethnicity- and Sex-Based
Discrimination and the Maintenance of Self-Esteem. PLOS ONE 10:5, e0124622. [Crossref]
707. Els Lecoutere, Ben D'Exelle, Bjorn Van Campenhout. 2015. Sharing Common Resources in
Patriarchal and Status-Based Societies: Evidence from Tanzania. Feminist Economics 1-26. [Crossref]
708. Kazuhito Ogawa, Takanori Ida. 2015. Investigating Donating Behavior Using Hypothetical Dictator
Game Experiments. Review of Social Economy 1-20. [Crossref]
709. René Ruske. 2015. Does Economics Make Politicians Corrupt? Empirical Evidence from the United
States Congress. Kyklos 68:2, 240-254. [Crossref]
710. M. Della Giusta, S. Jewell. 2015. Unpaid work and conformity: why care?. Cambridge Journal of
Economics 39:3, 689-710. [Crossref]
711. Carsten K. W. De Dreu, H. Steven Scholte, Frans A. A. M. van Winden, K. Richard Ridderinkhof.
2015. Oxytocin tempers calculated greed but not impulsive defense in predator–prey contests. Social
Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 10:5, 721-728. [Crossref]
712. Michele Belot, Raymond Duch, Luis Miller. 2015. A comprehensive comparison of students and
non-students in classic experimental games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 113, 26-33.
[Crossref]
713. Jordi Brandts, Valeska Groenert, Christina Rott. 2015. The Impact of Advice on Women's and Men's
Selection into Competition. Management Science 61:5, 1018-1035. [Crossref]
714. Sanyun Zeng, Lihong Wang. 2015. CEO gender and corporate cash holdings. Are female CEOs more
conservative?. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics 1-26. [Crossref]
715. Katrien Bosquet, Peter de Goeij, Kristien Smedts. 2015. Analysts’ earnings forecasts: coexistence and
dynamics of overconfidence and strategic incentives. Accounting and Business Research 45:3, 307-322.
[Crossref]
716. MarÃa Paz Espinosa, JaromÃr KovářÃk. 2015. Prosocial behavior and gender. Frontiers in
Behavioral Neuroscience 9. . [Crossref]
717. Daniel L. Hicks, Joan Hamory Hicks, Beatriz Maldonado. 2015. Are female politicians more
responsive to international crises?. Applied Economics Letters 22:6, 493-498. [Crossref]
718. Ardjan Gazheli, Miklós Antal, Jeroen van den Bergh. 2015. The Behavioral Basis of Policies Fostering
Long-Run Transitions: Stakeholders, Limited Rationality and Social Context. Futures . [Crossref]
719. Dennis A.V. Dittrich, Susanne Büchner, Micaela M. Kulesz. 2015. Dynamic repeated random
dictatorship and gender discrimination. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 55, 81-90.
[Crossref]
720. M. Sabharwal. 2015. From Glass Ceiling to Glass Cliff: Women in Senior Executive Service. Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory 25:2, 399-426. [Crossref]
721. Samuel Smithers. 2015. Goals, motivation and gender. Economics Letters . [Crossref]
722. Michele Williams, Evan Polman. 2015. Is It Me or Her? How Gender Composition Evokes
Interpersonally Sensitive Behavior on Collaborative Cross-Boundary Projects. Organization Science
26:2, 334-355. [Crossref]
723. Anat Bracha, Uri Gneezy, George Loewenstein. 2015. Relative Pay and Labor Supply. Journal of Labor
Economics 33:2, 297-315. [Crossref]
724. Louis-Philippe Morin. 2015. Do Men and Women Respond Differently to Competition? Evidence
from a Major Education Reform. Journal of Labor Economics 33:2, 443-491. [Crossref]
725. Darush Yazdanfar, Saeid Abbasian. 2015. Gender and the use of external business advice: a Swedish
study. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship 7:1, 105-124. [Crossref]
726. Marcus Dittrich. 2015. Gender differences in trust and reciprocity: evidence from a large-scale
experiment with heterogeneous subjects. Applied Economics 1-14. [Crossref]
727. Ujjaini Mukhopadhyay. 2015. ECONOMIC LIBERALIZATION AND GENDER INEQUALITY
IN THE LABOR MARKET: A THEORETICAL APPROACH. Review of Urban & Regional
Development Studies 27:1, 68-87. [Crossref]
728. Lisa Cameron, Nisvan Erkal, Lata Gangadharan, Marina Zhang. 2015. Cultural integration:
Experimental evidence of convergence in immigrants’ preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization 111, 38-58. [Crossref]
729. Gerd Muehlheusser, Andreas Roider, Niklas Wallmeier. 2015. Gender differences in honesty: Groups
versus individuals. Economics Letters 128, 25-29. [Crossref]
730. M. Caliendo, F. M. Fossen, A. Kritikos, M. Wetter. 2015. The Gender Gap in Entrepreneurship: Not
just a Matter of Personality. CESifo Economic Studies 61:1, 202-238. [Crossref]
731. Philipp Schreck. 2015. Honesty in managerial reporting: How competition affects the benefits and
costs of lying. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 27, 177-188. [Crossref]
732. Kyle Irwin, Kimberly Edwards, Jeffrey A. Tamburello. 2015. Gender, trust and cooperation in
environmental social dilemmas. Social Science Research 50, 328-342. [Crossref]
733. Utteeyo Dasgupta, Subha Mani. 2015. Only Mine or All Ours: Do Stronger Entitlements Affect
Altruistic Choices in the Household. World Development 67, 363-375. [Crossref]
734. P. Crosetto, A. Filippin, J. Heider. 2015. A Study of Outcome Reporting Bias Using Gender
Differences in Risk Attitudes. CESifo Economic Studies 61:1, 239-262. [Crossref]
735. Andrei Bremzen, Elena Khokhlova, Anton Suvorov, Jeroen van de Ven. 2015. Bad News: An
Experimental Study on the Informational Effects Of Rewards. Review of Economics and Statistics 97:1,
55-70. [Crossref]
736. Allison Witman. 2015. Public health insurance and disparate eligibility of spouses: The Medicare
eligibility gap. Journal of Health Economics 40, 10-25. [Crossref]
737. Daniela Glätzle-Rützler, Matthias Sutter, Achim Zeileis. 2015. No myopic loss aversion in adolescents?
– An experimental note. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 111, 169-176. [Crossref]
738. Maurice Levi, Kai Li, Feng Zhang. 2015. Are Women More Likely to Seek Advice than Men? Evidence
from the Boardroom. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 8:1, 127-149. [Crossref]
739. Kris Hardies, Diane Breesch, Joël Branson. 2015. The Female Audit Fee Premium. AUDITING:
A Journal of Practice & Theory . [Crossref]
740. Matteo M. Galizzi, Jeroen Nieboer. 2015. Digit ratio (2D:4D) and altruism: evidence from a large,
multi-ethnic sample. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 9. . [Crossref]
741. C. Krupenye, A. G. Rosati, B. Hare. 2015. Bonobos and chimpanzees exhibit human-like framing
effects. Biology Letters 11:2, 20140527-20140527. [Crossref]
742. Christopher Jay Roussin. 2015. Age differences in the perception of new co-worker benevolence.
Journal of Managerial Psychology 30:1, 71-86. [Crossref]
743. Catherine C. Eckel, Sascha C. Füllbrunn. 2015. Thar SHE Blows? Gender, Competition, and Bubbles
in Experimental Asset Markets. American Economic Review 105:2, 906-920. [Abstract] [View PDF
article] [PDF with links]
744. Kaileigh A. Byrne, Darrell A. Worthy. 2015. Gender differences in reward sensitivity and information
processing during decision-making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 50:1, 55-71. [Crossref]
745. Máximo Torero, Angelino Viceisza. 2015. To remit, or not to remit: that is the question. A remittance
field experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization . [Crossref]
746. Peter Kuhn, Marie Claire Villeval. 2015. Are Women More Attracted to Co-operation Than Men?.
The Economic Journal 125:582, 115-140. [Crossref]
747. Nilam Patel, Christian Grillon, Nevia Pavletic, Dana Rosen, Daniel S. Pine, Monique Ernst. 2015.
Oxytocin and vasopressin modulate risk-taking. Physiology & Behavior 139, 254-260. [Crossref]
748. Utteeyo Dasgupta, Lata Gangadharan, Pushkar Maitra, Subha Mani, Samyukta Subramanian. 2015.
Choosing to be trained: Do behavioral traits matter?. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
110, 145-159. [Crossref]
749. Burkhard C. Schipper. 2015. Sex Hormones and Competitive Bidding. Management Science 61:2,
249-266. [Crossref]
750. J. Samuel Baixauli-Soler, Maria Belda-Ruiz, Gregorio Sanchez-Marin. 2015. Executive stock options,
gender diversity in the top management team, and firm risk taking. Journal of Business Research 68:2,
451-463. [Crossref]
751. Joseph Lanfranchi, Mathieu Narcy. 2015. Female Overrepresentation in Public and Nonprofit Sector
Jobs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 44:1, 47-74. [Crossref]
752. Philip J. Grossman, Mana Komai, James E. Jensen. 2015. Leadership and gender in groups: An
experiment. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique 48:1, 368-388. [Crossref]
753. I. Ruiz, M. Siegel, C. Vargas-Silva. 2015. Forced Up or Down? The Impact of Forced Migration on
Social Status. Journal of Refugee Studies . [Crossref]
754. James Albrecht, Peter Skogman Thoursie, Susan Vroman. Parental Leave and the Glass Ceiling in
Sweden 89-114. [Crossref]
755. Giacomo De Giorgi, Marco Paccagnella, Michele Pellizzari. Gender Complementarities in the Labor
Market 277-298. [Crossref]
756. Stefano Gagliarducci, M. Daniele Paserman. The Effect of Female Leadership on Establishment and
Employee Outcomes: Evidence from Linked Employer-Employee Data 343-375. [Crossref]
757. Maria Bigoni, Margherita Fort, Mattia Nardotto, Tommaso G. Reggiani. 2015. Cooperation or
Competition? A Field Experiment on Non-monetary Learning Incentives. The B.E. Journal of
Economic Analysis & Policy, ahead of print. [Crossref]
758. Werner Bönte. 2015. Gender differences in competitive preferences: new cross-country empirical
evidence. Applied Economics Letters 22:1, 71-75. [Crossref]
759. Sophie Ponthieux, Dominique Meurs. Gender Inequality 981-1146. [Crossref]
760. 2015. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 78. . [Crossref]
761. P. Funk, C. Gathmann. 2015. Gender gaps in policy making: evidence from direct democracy in
Switzerland. Economic Policy 30:81, 141-181. [Crossref]
762. Briggs Depew. 2015. The effect of state dependent mandate laws on the labor supply decisions of
young adults. Journal of Health Economics 39, 123-134. [Crossref]
763. Jessica Preece, Olga Stoddard. 2015. Why women don’t run: Experimental evidence on gender
differences in political competition aversion. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 117, 296.
[Crossref]
764. Francine D. Blau. Gender, Economics of 757-763. [Crossref]
765. Matteo Migheli. 2015. Gender at work: Incentives and self-sorting. Journal of Behavioral and
Experimental Economics 55, 10. [Crossref]
766. Werner D. Kristjanpoller, Josephine E. Olson. 2015. Choice of Retirement Funds in Chile: Are
Chilean Women More Risk Averse than Men?. Sex Roles 72:1-2, 50-67. [Crossref]
767. Dara Lee Luca. 2015. Do Traffic Tickets Reduce Motor Vehicle Accidents? Evidence from a Natural
Experiment. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 34:1, 85-106. [Crossref]
768. Zhongquan Li, Zhiqin Sang, Ziyuan Zhang. 2015. Expressive suppression and financial risk taking:
A mediated moderation model. Personality and Individual Differences 72, 35-40. [Crossref]
769. Lena Nekby, Peter Skogman Thoursie, Lars Vahtrik. 2015. GENDER DIFFERENCES IN
EXAMINATION BEHAVIOR. Economic Inquiry 53:1, 352. [Crossref]
770. Ismael Rodriguez-Lara. 2015. An experimental study of gender differences in distributive justice.
Cuadernos de Economía 38:106, 27-36. [Crossref]
771. Joan Meyers-Levy, Barbara Loken. 2015. Revisiting gender differences: What we know and what lies
ahead. Journal of Consumer Psychology 25:1, 129. [Crossref]
772. David Masclet, Emmanuel Peterle, Sophie Larribeau. 2015. Gender differences in tournament and
flat-wage schemes: An experimental study. Journal of Economic Psychology 47, 103. [Crossref]
773. Robert O. Deaner, Aaron Lowen, William Rogers, Eric Saksa. 2015. Does the sex difference in
competitiveness decrease in selective sub-populations? A test with intercollegiate distance runners.
PeerJ 3, e884. [Crossref]
774. Lars Ivar Oppedal Berge, Kjetil Bjorvatn, Bertil Tungodden. 2015. Human and Financial Capital for
Microenterprise Development: Evidence from a Field and Lab Experiment. Management Science 61:4,
707. [Crossref]
775. Emmanuel Morales-Camargo, Orly Sade, Charles Schnitzlein, Jaime F. Zender. 2015. On the
Persistence of Overconfidence: Evidence From Multi-Unit Auctions. Journal of Behavioral Finance
16:1, 68. [Crossref]
776. J. A. Flory, A. Leibbrandt, J. A. List. 2015. Do Competitive Workplaces Deter Female Workers? A
Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment on Job Entry Decisions. The Review of Economic Studies 82:1,
122. [Crossref]
777. Sigal Alon, Thomas DiPrete. 2015. Gender Differences in the Formation of a Field of Study Choice
Set. Sociological Science 2, 50-81. [Crossref]
778. Ana I. Balsa, Néstor Gandelman, Nicolás González. 2015. Peer Effects in Risk Aversion. Risk Analysis
35:1, 27-43. [Crossref]
779. Loretti I. Dobrescu, Ben Greiner, Alberto Motta. 2015. Learning economics concepts through game-
play: An experiment. International Journal of Educational Research 69, 23-37. [Crossref]
780. David Aristei, Cristiano Perugini. Social Preferences for Redistribution in Central Eastern Europe and
in the Baltic Countries 265-283. [Crossref]
781. Shoshana Grossbard, Alfredo M. Pereira. Savings, Marriage, and Work-in-Household 191-209.
[Crossref]
782. Michael E. Price, Stuart Brown, Amber Dukes, Jinsheng Kang. 2015. Bodily Attractiveness and
Egalitarianism are Negatively Related in Males. Evolutionary Psychology 13:1, 147470491501300.
[Crossref]
783. Ratna Sahay, Martin Cihak, Papa N'Diaye, Adolfo Barajas, Srobona Mitra, Annette Kyobe, Yen Mooi,
Reza Yousefi. 2015. Financial Inclusion: Can it Meet Multiple Macroeconomic Goals?. Staff Discussion
Notes 15:17, 1. [Crossref]
784. Fábio Pimenta de Pádua Júnior, Pedro José Steiner Neto, Edson Melo da Silva Filho, Maximiliano
Gonetecki de Oliveira. 2014. A Influência da autorregulação nas heurísticas e vieses utilizados no
processo de tomada de decisão. Revista Eletrônica de Ciência Administrativa 13:3, 414-433. [Crossref]
785. Sarah Necker. 2014. Scientific misbehavior in economics. Research Policy 43:10, 1747-1759. [Crossref]
786. Young-Il Kim, Jungmin Lee. 2014. The long-run impact of a traumatic experience on risk aversion.
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 108, 174-186. [Crossref]
787. Edward D. Mansfield, Diana C. Mutz, Laura R. Silver. 2014. Men, Women, Trade, and Free Markets.
International Studies Quarterly n/a-n/a. [Crossref]
788. Jeffrey Derks, Nikki C. Lee, Lydia Krabbendam. 2014. Adolescent trust and trustworthiness: Role of
gender and social value orientation. Journal of Adolescence 37:8, 1379-1386. [Crossref]
789. Eyal Weinstock, Doron Sonsino. 2014. Are risk-seekers more optimistic? Non-parametric approach.
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 108, 236-251. [Crossref]
790. Ahmed Ennasri, Marc Willinger. 2014. Incentives and managerial effort under competitive pressure:
An experiment. Research in Economics 68:4, 324-337. [Crossref]
791. Maria De Paola, Francesca Gioia, Vincenzo Scoppa. 2014. Overconfidence, omens and gender
heterogeneity: Results from a field experiment. Journal of Economic Psychology 45, 237-252. [Crossref]
792. Stephen Mark Rosenbaum, Stephan Billinger, Nils Stieglitz. 2014. Let’s be honest: A review of
experimental evidence of honesty and truth-telling. Journal of Economic Psychology 45, 181-196.
[Crossref]
793. Nejat Anbarci, K. Peren Arin, Jungmin Lee. 2014. Gender differences in response to contingent
rewards: Evidence from a natural experiment of junior tennis. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental
Economics 53, 131-137. [Crossref]
794. M. Hohnisch, S. Pittnauer, R. Selten, A. Pfingsten, J. Eraßmy. 2014. Gender differences in decisions
under profound uncertainty are non-robust to the availability of information on equally informed
others’ decisions. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 108, 40-58. [Crossref]
795. H.-K. D. Dong. 2014. Individual Risk Preference and Sector Choice: Are Risk-Averse Individuals
More Likely to Choose Careers in the Public Sector?. Administration & Society . [Crossref]
796. Min Teah, Michael Lwin, Isaac Cheah. 2014. Moderating role of religious beliefs on attitudes towards
charities and motivation to donate. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 26:5, 738-760.
[Crossref]
797. Florian Knorr, Thorsten Chmura, Michael Schreckenberg. 2014. Route choice in the presence of
a toll road: The role of pre-trip information and learning. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic
Psychology and Behaviour 27, 44-55. [Crossref]
798. Nancy Mohan. 2014. A review of the gender effect on pay, corporate performance and entry into top
management. International Review of Economics & Finance 34, 41-51. [Crossref]
799. Yuval Arbel, Ronen Bar-El, Erez Siniver, Yossef Tobol. 2014. Roll a die and tell a lie – What affects
honesty?. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 107, 153-172. [Crossref]
800. Benjamin Roth, Andrea Voskort. 2014. Stereotypes and false consensus: How financial professionals
predict risk preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 107, 553-565. [Crossref]
801. Ben Jacobsen, John B. Lee, Wessel Marquering, Cherry Y. Zhang. 2014. Gender differences in
optimism and asset allocation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 107, 630-651. [Crossref]
802. Bill B. Francis, Iftekhar Hasan, Qiang Wu, Meng Yan. 2014. Are Female CFOs Less Tax Aggressive?
Evidence from Tax Aggressiveness. The Journal of the American Taxation Association 36:2, 171-202.
[Crossref]
803. Kay Blaufus, Sebastian Eichfelder, Jochen Hundsdoerfer. 2014. Income Tax Compliance Costs of
Working Individuals. Public Finance Review 42:6, 800-829. [Crossref]
804. Michael Lwin, Ian Phau, Aaron Lim. 2014. An Investigation of the Characteristics of Australian
Charitable Donors. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 26:4, 372-389. [Crossref]
805. Audinga Baltrunaite, Piera Bello, Alessandra Casarico, Paola Profeta. 2014. Gender quotas and the
quality of politicians. Journal of Public Economics 118, 62-74. [Crossref]
806. Ghazala Azmat, Barbara Petrongolo. 2014. Gender and the labor market: What have we learned from
field and lab experiments?. Labour Economics 30, 32-40. [Crossref]
807. Allen N. Berger, Thomas Kick, Klaus Schaeck. 2014. Executive board composition and bank risk
taking. Journal of Corporate Finance 28, 48-65. [Crossref]
808. Maurice Levi, Kai Li, Feng Zhang. 2014. Director gender and mergers and acquisitions. Journal of
Corporate Finance 28, 185-200. [Crossref]
809. V. Hartarska, D. Nadolnyak, R. Mersland. 2014. Are Women Better Bankers to the Poor? Evidence
from Rural Microfinance Institutions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 96:5, 1291-1306.
[Crossref]
810. Hubert J. Kiss, Ismael Rodriguez-Lara, Alfonso Rosa-Garcia. 2014. Do women panic more than men?
An experimental study of financial decisions. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 52,
40-51. [Crossref]
811. Tor Eriksson, Nicolai Kristensen. 2014. Wages or Fringes? Some Evidence on Trade-Offs and Sorting.
Journal of Labor Economics 32:4, 899-928. [Crossref]
812. Sarah M. Brooks. 2014. Insecure Democracy: Risk and Political Participation in Brazil. The Journal
of Politics 76:4, 972-985. [Crossref]
813. C. K. W. De Dreu, H. S. Scholte, F. A. A. M. van Winden, K. R. Ridderinkhof. 2014. Oxytocin
Tempers Calculated Greed but not Impulsive Defense in Predator-Prey Contests. Social Cognitive and
Affective Neuroscience . [Crossref]
814. John R. Nofsinger, Abhishek Varma. 2014. Pound wise and penny foolish? OTC stock investor
behavior. Review of Behavioural Finance 6:1, 2-25. [Crossref]
815. Ragnhild Haugli Braaten. 2014. Land Rights and Community Cooperation. World Development 61,
127-141. [Crossref]
816. I. van Staveren. 2014. The Lehman Sisters hypothesis. Cambridge Journal of Economics 38:5,
995-1014. [Crossref]
817. Leonardo Christov-Moore, Elizabeth A. Simpson, Gino Coudé, Kristina Grigaityte, Marco Iacoboni,
Pier Francesco Ferrari. 2014. Empathy: Gender effects in brain and behavior. Neuroscience &
Biobehavioral Reviews . [Crossref]
818. Jamie Emerson, Brian Hill. 2014. Gender Differences in Competition: Running Performance in 1,500
Meter Tournaments. Eastern Economic Journal 40:4, 499-517. [Crossref]
819. Kyle Irwin, Laetitia Mulder, Brent Simpson. 2014. The Detrimental Effects of Sanctions on
Intragroup Trust. Social Psychology Quarterly 77:3, 253-272. [Crossref]
820. L. Warshawsky-Livne, L. Novack, A. B. Rosen, S. M. Downs, J. Shkolnik-Inbar, J. S. Pliskin. Gender
Differences in Risk Attitudes 123-140. [Crossref]
821. Yuval Arbel, Yossef Tobol, Erez Siniver. 2014. Social involvement, level of income and employment
among immigrants. International Journal of Manpower 35:6, 798-816. [Crossref]
822. Hanna Brenzel, Hermann Gartner, Claus Schnabel. 2014. Wage bargaining or wage posting? Evidence
from the employers' side. Labour Economics 29, 41-48. [Crossref]
823. Jeremy Hutchison-Krupat, Raul O. Chao. 2014. Tolerance for Failure and Incentives for Collaborative
Innovation. Production and Operations Management 23:8, 1265-1285. [Crossref]
824. Matteo Migheli. 2014. Preferences for government interventions in the economy: Does gender
matter?. International Review of Law and Economics 39, 39-48. [Crossref]
825. Diego Aycinena, Rimvydas Baltaduonis, Lucas Rentschler. 2014. Risk Preferences and Prenatal
Exposure to Sex Hormones for Ladinos. PLoS ONE 9:8, e103332. [Crossref]
826. Thomas Buser, Muriel Niederle, Hessel Oosterbeek. 2014. Gender, Competitiveness, and Career
Choices *. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 129:3, 1409-1447. [Crossref]
827. Julie A. Nelson. 2014. Fearing fear: gender and economic discourse. Mind & Society . [Crossref]
828. Mary Jane Lenard, Bing Yu, E. Anne York, Shengxiong Wu. 2014. Impact of board gender diversity
on firm risk. Managerial Finance 40:8, 787-803. [Crossref]
829. Nuno Crespo, Nadia Simoes, Sandrina B. Moreira. 2014. Gender differences in occupational mobility
– evidence from Portugal. International Review of Applied Economics 28:4, 460-481. [Crossref]
830. Heeyoung Yoon, Dae Ryun Chang, Kyoungmi Lee. 2014. It has to be ME (not YOU): the role of
competitive message on the effectiveness of sales promotion. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing
Science 24:3, 339-349. [Crossref]
831. Núria Rodríguez-Planas, Raquel Vegas. 2014. Do Moroccan migrants to Spain fare better or worse
than other migrants?. Middle East Development Journal 6:2, 308-328. [Crossref]
832. Julie A. Nelson. 2014. The power of stereotyping and confirmation bias to overwhelm accurate
assessment: the case of economics, gender, and risk aversion. Journal of Economic Methodology 21:3,
211-231. [Crossref]
833. Tim Lohse, Salmai Qari. 2014. Gender differences in deception behaviour – the role of the
counterpart. Applied Economics Letters 21:10, 702-705. [Crossref]
834. Robert O. Deaner, Rickey E. Carter, Michael J. Joyner, Sandra K. Hunter. 2014. Men are More Likely
than Women to Slow in the Marathon. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 1. [Crossref]
835. Alexander Pepper, Julie Gore. 2014. The economic psychology of incentives: An international study
of top managers. Journal of World Business 49:3, 350-361. [Crossref]
836. Ferdinand M. Vieider, Mathieu Lefebvre, Ranoua Bouchouicha, Thorsten Chmura, Rustamdjan
Hakimov, Michal Krawczyk, Peter Martinsson. 2014. COMMON COMPONENTS OF RISK AND
UNCERTAINTY ATTITUDES ACROSS CONTEXTS AND DOMAINS: EVIDENCE FROM
30 COUNTRIES. Journal of the European Economic Association n/a-n/a. [Crossref]
837. David Gill, Victoria Prowse. 2014. Gender differences and dynamics in competition: The role of luck.
Quantitative Economics 5:2, 351-376. [Crossref]
838. J. Matias Kivikangas, Jari Kätsyri, Simo Järvelä, Niklas Ravaja. 2014. Gender Differences in Emotional
Responses to Cooperative and Competitive Game Play. PLoS ONE 9:7, e100318. [Crossref]
839. Benjamin Djulbegovic, Jason W. Beckstead, Shira Elqayam, Tea Reljic, Iztok Hozo, Ambuj Kumar,
Janis Cannon-Bowers, Stephanie Taylor, Athanasios Tsalatsanis, Brandon Turner, Charles Paidas.
2014. Evaluation of Physicians? Cognitive Styles. Medical Decision Making 34:5, 627-637. [Crossref]
840. Christian Ehm, Christine Kaufmann, Martin Weber. 2014. Volatility Inadaptability: Investors Care
About Risk, but Cannot Cope with Volatility*. Review of Finance 18:4, 1387-1423. [Crossref]
841. Sebastian Ebert, Daniel Wiesen. 2014. Joint measurement of risk aversion, prudence, and temperance.
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 48:3, 231-252. [Crossref]
842. Sigal Tifferet, Iris Vilnai-Yavetz. 2014. Gender differences in Facebook self-presentation: An
international randomized study. Computers in Human Behavior 35, 388-399. [Crossref]
843. Raymundo M. Campos-Vazquez, Emilio Cuilty. 2014. The role of emotions on risk aversion: A
Prospect Theory experiment. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 50, 1-9. [Crossref]
844. Markus Baer, Abhijeet K. Vadera, Roger T. A. J. Leenders, Greg R. Oldham. 2014. Intergroup
Competition as a Double-Edged Sword: How Sex Composition Regulates the Effects of Competition
on Group Creativity. Organization Science 25:3, 892-908. [Crossref]
845. Suraj Jacob. 2014. Gender and Legislative Performance in India. Politics & Gender 10:02, 236-264.
[Crossref]
846. Umberto Galmarini, Simone Pellegrino, Massimiliano Piacenza, Gilberto Turati. 2014. The runaway
taxpayer. International Tax and Public Finance 21:3, 468-497. [Crossref]
847. Mario Daniele Amore, Orsola Garofalo, Alessandro Minichilli. 2014. Gender Interactions Within the
Family Firm. Management Science 60:5, 1083-1097. [Crossref]
848. Heike Hennig-Schmidt, Daniel Wiesen. 2014. Other-regarding behavior and motivation in health
care provision: An experiment with medical and non-medical students. Social Science & Medicine 108,
156-165. [Crossref]
849. Graziella Bertocchi, Marianna Brunetti, Costanza Torricelli. 2014. Who holds the purse strings within
the household? The determinants of intra-family decision making. Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization 101, 65-86. [Crossref]
850. Alet C. Erasmus, Suné Donoghue, Thomas Dobbelstein. 2014. Consumers‫ ׳‬perception of the
complexity of selected household purchase decisions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21:3,
293-305. [Crossref]
851. Robert O. Deaner, Vittorio Addona, Michael P. Mead. 2014. U.S. Masters Track Participation
Reveals a Stable Sex Difference in Competitiveness. Evolutionary Psychology 12:5, 147470491401200.
[Crossref]
852. Chantal Remery, Ilse Matser, Roberto Hans Flören. 2014. Successors in Dutch family businesses:
gender differences. Journal of Family Business Management 4:1, 79-91. [Crossref]
853. Monica Fisher, Vongai Kandiwa. 2014. Can agricultural input subsidies reduce the gender gap in
modern maize adoption? Evidence from Malawi. Food Policy 45, 101-111. [Crossref]
854. Sabine Hügelschäfer, Anja Achtziger. 2014. On confident men and rational women: It’s all on your
mind(set). Journal of Economic Psychology 41, 31-44. [Crossref]
855. Tali Mendelberg, Christopher F. Karpowitz, Nicholas Goedert. 2014. Does Descriptive Representation
Facilitate Women's Distinctive Voice? How Gender Composition and Decision Rules Affect
Deliberation. American Journal of Political Science 58:2, 291-306. [Crossref]
856. C. Leigh Anderson, Katelyn Stahley, Alison C. Cullen. 2014. Individual and intra-household
positionality in Vietnam. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 49, 26-34. [Crossref]
857. Tim Friehe, Mario Mechtel. 2014. Conspicuous consumption and political regimes: Evidence from
East and West Germany. European Economic Review 67, 62-81. [Crossref]
858. David Stadelmann, Marco Portmann, Reiner Eichenberger. 2014. Politicians and Preferences of the
Voter Majority: Does Gender Matter?. Economics & Politics n/a-n/a. [Crossref]
859. Holger A. Rau. 2014. The disposition effect and loss aversion: Do gender differences matter?.
Economics Letters 123:1, 33-36. [Crossref]
860. MARCUS DITTRICH, ANDREAS KNABE, KRISTINA LEIPOLD. 2014. GENDER
DIFFERENCES IN EXPERIMENTAL WAGE NEGOTIATIONS. Economic Inquiry 52:2,
862-873. [Crossref]
861. Wei-Bin Zhang. 2014. Growth with gender-differentiated human capital and family wealth
accumulation based on the Uzawa-Lucas two-sector model. Society and Economy 36:1, 69-94.
[Crossref]
862. Simon Dato, Petra Nieken. 2014. Gender differences in competition and sabotage. Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization 100, 64-80. [Crossref]
863. Andrea Weber, Christine Zulehner. 2014. COMPETITION AND GENDER PREJUDICE: ARE
DISCRIMINATORY EMPLOYERS DOOMED TO FAIL?. Journal of the European Economic
Association 12:2, 492-521. [Crossref]
864. David A. Matsa, Amalia R. Miller. 2014. Workforce Reductions at Women-Owned Businesses in the
United States. ILR Review 67:2, 422-452. [Crossref]
865. Monika Filipsson, Lill Ljunggren, Tomas Öberg. 2014. Gender differences in risk management of
contaminated land at a Swedish authority. Journal of Risk Research 17:3, 353-365. [Crossref]
866. Daniel Jones, Sera Linardi. 2014. Wallflowers: Experimental Evidence of an Aversion to Standing Out.
Management Science 140310101401003. [Crossref]
867. Juan-Camilo Cárdenas, Anna Dreber, Emma von Essen, Eva Ranehill. 2014. Gender and Cooperation
in Children: Experiments in Colombia and Sweden. PLoS ONE 9:3, e90923. [Crossref]
868. . Equitable and Sustainable Pensions . [Crossref]
869. Jose A. Muñoz-Reyes, Miguel Pita, Maria Arjona, Santiago Sanchez-Pages, Enrique Turiegano. 2014.
Who is the fairest of them all? The independent effect of attractive features and self-perceived
attractiveness on cooperation among women. Evolution and Human Behavior 35:2, 118-125. [Crossref]
870. Harald Dale-Olsen. 2014. Sickness Absence, Sick Leave Pay, and Pay Schemes. LABOUR 28:1, 40-63.
[Crossref]
871. James Farrell. Demographic and Socioeconomic Factors of Investors 117-134. [Crossref]
872. Anna Dreber, Emma Essen, Eva Ranehill. 2014. Gender and competition in adolescence: task matters.
Experimental Economics 17:1, 154-172. [Crossref]
873. Vicki L. Bogan. Household Investment Decisions 83-98. [Crossref]
874. Alison Booth, Lina Cardona-Sosa, Patrick Nolen. 2014. Gender differences in risk aversion: Do single-
sex environments affect their development?. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 99, 126-154.
[Crossref]
875. Binzhen Wu, Xiaohan Zhong. 2014. Matching mechanisms and matching quality: Evidence from a
top university in China. Games and Economic Behavior 84, 196-215. [Crossref]
876. Joachim Hüffmeier, Philipp Alexander Freund, Alfred Zerres, Klaus Backhaus, Guido Hertel. 2014.
Being Tough or Being Nice? A Meta-Analysis on the Impact of Hard- and Softline Strategies in
Distributive Negotiations. Journal of Management 40:3, 866-892. [Crossref]
877. Timothy Waring, Sandra Goff, Julia McGuire, Z. Moore, Abigail Sullivan. 2014. Cooperation
across Organizational Boundaries: Experimental Evidence from a Major Sustainability Science Project.
Sustainability 6:3, 1171-1190. [Crossref]
878. Ola Andersson, Håkan J. Holm, Jean-Robert Tyran, Erik Wengström. 2014. Deciding for Others
Reduces Loss Aversion. Management Science 141223041315002. [Crossref]
879. Mirco Tonin, Michael Vlassopoulos. 2014. Corporate Philanthropy and Productivity: Evidence from
an Online Real Effort Experiment. Management Science 141223041315002. [Crossref]
880. Steffen Brenner. 2014. The Risk Preferences of U.S. Executives. Management Science
141223041315002. [Crossref]
881. Marc Oliver Rieger, Mei Wang, Thorsten Hens. 2014. Risk Preferences Around the World.
Management Science 141223041315002. [Crossref]
882. Takanori Tanaka. 2014. Gender diversity in the boards and the pricing of publicly traded corporate
debt: evidence from Japan. Applied Financial Economics 24:4, 247-258. [Crossref]
883. Dakshina G. De Silva, Rachel A. J. Pownall. 2014. Going green: does it depend on education, gender
or income?. Applied Economics 46:5, 573-586. [Crossref]
884. Grace B Villamor, Meine van Noordwijk, Utkur Djanibekov, Ma Elena Chiong-Javier, Delia
Catacutan. 2014. Gender differences in land-use decisions: shaping multifunctional landscapes?.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6, 128-133. [Crossref]
885. Carolyn Henriette Declerck, Christophe Boone, Toko Kiyonari. 2014. No Place to Hide: When Shame
Causes Proselfs to Cooperate. The Journal of Social Psychology 154:1, 74-88. [Crossref]
886. Henrik Hansen, John Rand. 2014. The Myth of Female Credit Discrimination in African
Manufacturing. The Journal of Development Studies 50:1, 81-96. [Crossref]
887. Catherine Eckel. Economic Games for Social Scientists 335-355. [Crossref]
888. Ruth Butler. 47, 1. [Crossref]
889. Wayne E. Baker, Nathaniel Bulkley. 2014. Paying It Forward vs. Rewarding Reputation: Mechanisms
of Generalized Reciprocity. Organization Science 25:5, 1493. [Crossref]
890. Charles A. Holt, Susan K. Laury. Assessment and Estimation of Risk Preferences 135-201. [Crossref]
891. Adele Diederich, Lars Schwettmann, Jeannette Winkelhage. 2014. Does lifestyle matter when
deciding on copayment for health care? A survey of the general public. Journal of Public Health 22:5,
443. [Crossref]
892. Marcus Dittrich, Kristina Leipold. 2014. Gender differences in time preferences. Economics Letters
. [Crossref]
893. Jonathan E. Alevy, Francis L. Jeffries, Yonggang Lu. 2014. Gender- and frame-specific audience effects
in dictator games. Economics Letters 122:1, 50-54. [Crossref]
894. Elisabeth Bügelmayer, C. Katharina Spiess. 2014. Spite and cognitive skills in preschoolers. Journal
of Economic Psychology 45, 154. [Crossref]
895. Charles N. Noussair, Stefan T. Trautmann, Gijs van de Kuilen. 2014. Higher Order Risk Attitudes,
Demographics, and Financial Decisions. The Review of Economic Studies 81:1, 325-355. [Crossref]
896. Wei-Bin Zhang. 2014. Gender Discrimination, Education and Economic Growth in a Generalized
Uzawa-Lucas Two-Sector Model. Timisoara Journal of Economics and Business 7:1, 1-34. [Crossref]
897. Ola Kvaløy, Miguel Luzuriaga. 2013. Playing the trust game with other people’s money. Experimental
Economics . [Crossref]
898. J. Alberto Molina, J. Ignacio Giménez-Nadal, José A. Cuesta, Carlos Gracia-Lazaro, Yamir Moreno,
Angel Sanchez. 2013. Gender Differences in Cooperation: Experimental Evidence on High School
Students. PLoS ONE 8:12, e83700. [Crossref]
899. Mari Kangasniemi, Antti Kauhanen. 2013. Performance-related pay and gender wage differences.
Applied Economics 45:36, 5131-5143. [Crossref]
900. Anna Dreber, Drew Fudenberg, David G. Rand. 2013. Who Cooperates in Repeated Games: The
Role of Altruism, Inequity Aversion, and Demographics. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
. [Crossref]
901. Hamid Beladi, Margot Quijano. 2013. CEO incentives for risk shifting and its effect on corporate
bank loan cost. International Review of Financial Analysis 30, 182-188. [Crossref]
902. Olivier Armantier, Amadou Boly. 2013. Comparing Corruption in the Laboratory and in the Field in
Burkina Faso and in Canada. The Economic Journal 123:573, 1168-1187. [Crossref]
903. Vicki L. Bogan, David R. Just, Chekitan S. Dev. 2013. Team gender diversity and investment decision-
making behavior. Review of Behavioural Finance 5:2, 134-152. [Crossref]
904. Katherine Baldiga. 2013. Gender Differences in Willingness to Guess. Management Science
131105054351001. [Crossref]
905. Ernst Fehr, Daniela Glätzle-Rützler, Matthias Sutter. 2013. The development of egalitarianism,
altruism, spite and parochialism in childhood and adolescence. European Economic Review 64, 369-383.
[Crossref]
906. Dominique van de Walle. 2013. Lasting Welfare Effects of Widowhood in Mali. World Development
51, 1-19. [Crossref]
907. Beate Jochimsen, Sebastian Thomasius. 2013. The perfect finance minister: Whom to appoint as
finance minister to balance the budget. European Journal of Political Economy . [Crossref]
908. Jasmin Joecks, Kerstin Pull, Karin Vetter. 2013. Gender Diversity in the Boardroom and Firm
Performance: What Exactly Constitutes a “Critical Mass?”. Journal of Business Ethics 118:1, 61-72.
[Crossref]
909. Seongmin A. Park, Soyeong Jeong, Jaeseung Jeong. 2013. TV programs that denounce unfair
advantage impact women’s sensitivity to defection in the public goods game. Social Neuroscience 8:6,
568-582. [Crossref]
910. Michal Bauer, Julie Chytilová. 2013. Women, Children and Patience: Experimental Evidence from
Indian Villages. Review of Development Economics 17:4, 662-675. [Crossref]
911. Vicki L. Bogan. 2013. Household investment decisions and offspring gender: parental accounting.
Applied Economics 45:31, 4429-4442. [Crossref]
912. J. François Outreville. 2013. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELATIVE RISK AVERSION
AND THE LEVEL OF EDUCATION: A SURVEY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE
DEMAND FOR LIFE INSURANCE. Journal of Economic Surveys n/a-n/a. [Crossref]
913. Robin W. Spencer. 2013. Work Is Not a Game. Research-Technology Management 56:6, 59-60.
[Crossref]
914. Torberg Falch, Linn Renée Naper. 2013. Educational evaluation schemes and gender gaps in student
achievement. Economics of Education Review 36, 12-25. [Crossref]
915. Steffen Andersen, Seda Ertac, Uri Gneezy, John A. List, Sandra Maximiano. 2013. Gender,
Competitiveness, and Socialization at a Young Age: Evidence From a Matrilineal and a Patriarchal
Society. Review of Economics and Statistics 95:4, 1438-1443. [Crossref]
916. Timothy N. Cason, Sau-Him Paul Lau, Vai-Lam Mui. 2013. Learning, teaching, and turn taking in
the repeated assignment game. Economic Theory 54:2, 335-357. [Crossref]
917. Stephen Gould, Rania W. Semaan, Lauren Trabold. 2013. “How I think you are investing”: Gendered,
social metacognitive influences on consumers’ investing perspectives. Social Influence 8:4, 251-267.
[Crossref]
918. Martin G. Kocher, Julius Pahlke, Stefan T. Trautmann. 2013. Tempus Fugit : Time Pressure in Risky
Decisions. Management Science 59:10, 2380-2391. [Crossref]
919. Michael Lwin, Ian Phau, Aaron Lim. 2013. Charitable donations: empirical evidence from Brunei.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration 5:3, 215-233. [Crossref]
920. John Cawley, Joshua A. Price. 2013. A case study of a workplace wellness program that offers financial
incentives for weight loss. Journal of Health Economics 32:5, 794-803. [Crossref]
921. VICTOR S. MAAS, MARCEL VAN RINSUM. 2013. How Control System Design Influences
Performance Misreporting. Journal of Accounting Research n/a-n/a. [Crossref]
922. Michael Dowling, Zakaria Ali Aribi. 2013. Female directors and UK company acquisitiveness.
International Review of Financial Analysis 29, 79-86. [Crossref]
923. Rudolf Vetschera, Guenther Kainz. 2013. Do Self-Reported Strategies Match Actual Behavior in a
Social Preference Experiment?. Group Decision and Negotiation 22:5, 823-849. [Crossref]
924. Alexander W. Cappelen, Erik Ø. Sørensen, Bertil Tungodden. 2013. When do we lie?. Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization 93, 258-265. [Crossref]
925. Jose Apesteguia, Patricia Funk, Nagore Iriberri. 2013. Promoting rule compliance in daily-life:
Evidence from a randomized field experiment in the public libraries of Barcelona. European Economic
Review . [Crossref]
926. Fredrik Carlsson, Peter Martinsson, Ping Qin, Matthias Sutter. 2013. The influence of spouses on
household decision making under risk: an experiment in rural China. Experimental Economics 16:3,
383-401. [Crossref]
927. Peter J. Loewen, Christopher T. Dawes, Nina Mazar, Magnus Johannesson, Philipp Koellinger,
Patrik K.E. Magnusson. 2013. The heritability of moral standards for everyday dishonesty. Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization 93, 363-366. [Crossref]
928. Isak Svensson, Karen Brounéus. 2013. Dialogue and interethnic trust. Journal of Peace Research 50:5,
563-575. [Crossref]
929. Sisse Liv Jørgensen, Søren Bøye Olsen, Jacob Ladenburg, Louise Martinsen, Stig Roar Svenningsen,
Berit Hasler. 2013. Spatially induced disparities in users' and non-users' WTP for water quality
improvements—Testing the effect of multiple substitutes and distance decay. Ecological Economics 92,
58-66. [Crossref]
930. J.M. Hartgerink, J.M. Cramm, T.J.E.M. Bakker, A.M. van Eijsden, J.P. Mackenbach, A.P. Nieboer.
2013. The importance of multidisciplinary teamwork and team climate for relational coordination
among teams delivering care to older patients. Journal of Advanced Nursing n/a-n/a. [Crossref]
931. Leonardo Becchetti, Giacomo Degli Antoni, Stefania Ottone, Nazaria Solferino. 2013. Allocation
criteria under task performance: The gendered preference for protection. The Journal of Socio-
Economics 45, 96-111. [Crossref]
932. Paolo Crosetto, Antonio Filippin. 2013. The “bomb” risk elicitation task. Journal of Risk and
Uncertainty 47:1, 31-65. [Crossref]
933. Ari Hyytinen, Jukka Lahtonen. 2013. The effect of physical activity on long-term income. Social
Science & Medicine . [Crossref]
934. Mohammed Abdellaoui, Olivier l’Haridon, Corina Paraschiv. 2013. Individual vs. couple behavior: an
experimental investigation of risk preferences. Theory and Decision 75:2, 175-191. [Crossref]
935. Anya C. Samak. 2013. Is there a gender gap in preschoolers’ competitiveness? An experiment in the
U.S. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 92, 22-31. [Crossref]
936. Daniel Alfredo Revollo-Fernandez, Alonso Aguilar-Ibarra. 2013. Measures of risk associated to
regulations compliance: a laboratory experiment on the use of common-pool resources. Journal of
Risk Research 1-19. [Crossref]
937. Yann Algan,, Pierre Cahuc,, Andrei Shleifer. 2013. Teaching Practices and Social Capital. American
Economic Journal: Applied Economics 5:3, 189-210. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
938. David A. Matsa,, Amalia R. Miller. 2013. A Female Style in Corporate Leadership? Evidence from
Quotas. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 5:3, 136-169. [Abstract] [View PDF article]
[PDF with links]
939. Gianna Lotito, Matteo Migheli, Guido Ortona. 2013. Is cooperation instinctive? Evidence from the
response times in a public goods game. Journal of Bioeconomics 15:2, 123-133. [Crossref]
940. FRANZISKA TAUSCH, JAN POTTERS, ARNO RIEDL. 2013. Preferences for redistribution and
pensions. What can we learn from experiments?. Journal of Pension Economics and Finance 12:03,
298-325. [Crossref]
941. Nikolaus Robalino, Arthur J. Robson. 2013. Genes, Culture, and Preferences. Biological Theory 8:2,
151-157. [Crossref]
942. Juan Camilo Cardenas, Jeffrey Carpenter. 2013. Risk attitudes and economic well-being in Latin
America. Journal of Development Economics 103, 52-61. [Crossref]
943. V. L. Bogan, A. R. Fertig. 2013. Portfolio Choice and Mental Health. Review of Finance 17:3, 955-992.
[Crossref]
944. Evren Ors, Frédéric Palomino, Eloïc Peyrache. 2013. Performance Gender Gap: Does Competition
Matter?. Journal of Labor Economics 31:3, 443-499. [Crossref]
945. Thorsten Beck, Patrick Behr, Andre Guettler. 2013. Gender and Banking: Are Women Better Loan
Officers?*. Review of Finance 17:4, 1279-1321. [Crossref]
946. Ingela Alger, Donald Cox. 2013. The evolution of altruistic preferences: mothers versus fathers.
Review of Economics of the Household . [Crossref]
947. Shoshana Grossbard, Sankar Mukhopadhyay. 2013. Children, spousal love, and happiness: an
economic analysis. Review of Economics of the Household . [Crossref]
948. Andreas Leibbrandt, Uri Gneezy, John A. List. 2013. Rise and fall of competitiveness in individualistic
and collectivistic societies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110:23, 9305-9308.
[Crossref]
949. David Priilaid, Michael Sevenoaks, Ryan Aitken, Clint Chisholm. 2013. How price demeans sighted
assessments across user profiles. International Journal of Wine Business Research 25:2, 108-124.
[Crossref]
950. Michela Sarlo, Lorella Lotto, Daniela Palomba, Simona Scozzari, Rino Rumiati. 2013. Framing the
Ultimatum Game: Gender differences and autonomic responses. International Journal of Psychology
48:3, 263-271. [Crossref]
951. Soo Hong Chew, Richard P. Ebstein, Songfa Zhong. 2013. Sex-hormone genes and gender difference
in ultimatum game: Experimental evidence from China and Israel. Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization 90, 28-42. [Crossref]
952. Yu Wang, Ernan Haruvy. 2013. Tiers in One-Sided Matching Markets: Theory and Experimental
Investigation. Management Science 59:6, 1458-1477. [Crossref]
953. Tomoki Fujii, Ryuichiro Ishikawa. 2013. How Does Childbirth Alter Intrahousehold Resource
Allocation? Evidence from Japan*. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 75:3, 362-387. [Crossref]
954. Anna Dreber, Christer Gerdes, Patrik Gränsmark. 2013. Beauty queens and battling knights: Risk
taking and attractiveness in chess. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 90, 1-18. [Crossref]
955. Matthew P. Taylor. 2013. Bias and brains: Risk aversion and cognitive ability across real and
hypothetical settings. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 46:3, 299-320. [Crossref]
956. Anthony M. Evans, Ursula Athenstaedt, Joachim I. Krueger. 2013. The development of trust and
altruism during childhood. Journal of Economic Psychology 36, 82-95. [Crossref]
957. Giovanni Immordino, Mario Padula. 2013. Expropriation risk and discounting. Research in Economics
67:2, 145-156. [Crossref]
958. Daniel R. Burghart, Paul W. Glimcher, Stephanie C. Lazzaro. 2013. An expected utility maximizer
walks into a bar... Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 46:3, 215-246. [Crossref]
959. Kim Ittonen, Emilia Vähämaa, Sami Vähämaa. 2013. Female Auditors and Accruals Quality.
Accounting Horizons 27:2, 205-228. [Crossref]
960. Bert D'espallier, Isabelle Guerin, Roy Mersland. 2013. Focus on Women in Microfinance Institutions.
Journal of Development Studies 49:5, 589-608. [Crossref]
961. Maria De Paola. 2013. The Determinants of Risk Aversion: The Role of Intergenerational
Transmission. German Economic Review 14:2, 214-234. [Crossref]
962. Pablo Brañas-Garza, Jaromír Kovářík, Levent Neyse. 2013. Second-to-Fourth Digit Ratio Has a Non-
Monotonic Impact on Altruism. PLoS ONE 8:4, e60419. [Crossref]
963. Inga‐Lill Söderberg. 2013. Relationships between advisor characteristics and consumer perceptions.
International Journal of Bank Marketing 31:3, 147-166. [Crossref]
964. Anat Bracha, Chaim Fershtman. 2013. Competitive Incentives: Working Harder or Working
Smarter?. Management Science 59:4, 771-781. [Crossref]
965. Mark A. Clatworthy, Michael J. Peel. 2013. The impact of voluntary audit and governance
characteristics on accounting errors in private companies. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy .
[Crossref]
966. Mary Riddel, Sonja Kolstoe. 2013. Heterogeneity in life-duration preferences: Are risky recreationists
really more risk loving?. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 46:2, 191-213. [Crossref]
967. Haukur Freyr Gylfason, Audur Arna Arnardottir, Kari Kristinsson. 2013. More on gender differences
in lying. Economics Letters 119:1, 94-96. [Crossref]
968. Chau Do, Irina Paley. 2013. Does Gender Affect Mortgage Choice? Evidence from the US. Feminist
Economics 19:2, 33-68. [Crossref]
969. Robert O. Deaner. 2013. Distance Running as an Ideal Domain for Showing a Sex Difference in
Competitiveness. Archives of Sexual Behavior 42:3, 413-428. [Crossref]
970. Friedrich Heinemann, Martin G. Kocher. 2013. Tax compliance under tax regime changes.
International Tax and Public Finance 20:2, 225-246. [Crossref]
971. Philipp Koellinger, Maria Minniti, Christian Schade. 2013. Gender Differences in Entrepreneurial
Propensity*. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 75:2, 213-234. [Crossref]
972. Roger Wilkins, Mark Wooden. 2013. Gender Differences in Involuntary Job Loss: Why Are Men
More Likely to Lose Their Jobs?. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society 52:2, 582-608.
[Crossref]
973. Josse Delfgaauw, Robert Dur, Joeri Sol, Willem Verbeke. 2013. Tournament Incentives in the Field:
Gender Differences in the Workplace. Journal of Labor Economics 31:2, 305-326. [Crossref]
974. Carina Cavalcanti, Stefanie Engel, Andreas Leibbrandt. 2013. Social integration, participation,
and community resource management. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 65:2,
262-276. [Crossref]
975. René Böheim, Klemens Himpele, Helmut Mahringer, Christine Zulehner. 2013. The distribution
of the gender wage gap in Austria: evidence from matched employer-employee data and tax records.
Journal for Labour Market Research 46:1, 19-34. [Crossref]
976. Marco Castillo, Ragan Petrie, Maximo Torero, Lise Vesterlund. 2013. Gender differences in
bargaining outcomes: A field experiment on discrimination. Journal of Public Economics 99, 35-48.
[Crossref]
977. Matthew Pearson, Burkhard C. Schipper. 2013. Menstrual cycle and competitive bidding. Games and
Economic Behavior 78, 1-20. [Crossref]
978. Sven Tengstam. 2013. DISABILITY AND MARGINAL UTILITY OF INCOME: EVIDENCE
FROM HYPOTHETICAL CHOICES. Health Economics n/a-n/a. [Crossref]
979. Tore Ellingsen, Magnus Johannesson, Johanna Mollerstrom, Sara Munkhammar. 2013. Gender
differences in social framing effects. Economics Letters 118:3, 470-472. [Crossref]
980. Dana Chandler, Adam Kapelner. 2013. Breaking Monotony with Meaning: Motivation in
Crowdsourcing Markets. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization . [Crossref]
981. Teng Yuan Cheng, Chun I Lee, Chao Hsien Lin. 2013. An examination of the relationship between
the disposition effect and gender, age, the traded security, and bull–bear market conditions. Journal
of Empirical Finance 21, 195-213. [Crossref]
982. Kris Hardies, Diane Breesch, Joël Branson. 2013. Gender differences in overconfidence and risk taking:
Do self-selection and socialization matter?. Economics Letters 118:3, 442-444. [Crossref]
983. Mara Olekalns, Carol T. Kulik, Lin Chew. 2013. Sweet Little Lies: Social Context and the Use of
Deception in Negotiation. Journal of Business Ethics . [Crossref]
984. Matthias Sutter,, Martin G. Kocher,, Daniela Glätzle-Rützler,, Stefan T. Trautmann. 2013.
Impatience and Uncertainty: Experimental Decisions Predict Adolescents' Field Behavior. American
Economic Review 103:1, 510-531. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
985. Sergio Da Silva, Dinorá Baldo, Raul Matsushita. 2013. Biological correlates of the Allais paradox.
Applied Economics 45:5, 555-568. [Crossref]
986. Mark Van Vugt, Wendy Iredale. 2013. Men behaving nicely: Public goods as peacock tails. British
Journal of Psychology 104:1, 3-13. [Crossref]
987. Dora Gicheva, Albert N. Link. 2013. Leveraging entrepreneurship through private investments: does
gender matter?. Small Business Economics 40:2, 199-210. [Crossref]
988. Ananish Chaudhuri, Tirnud Paichayontvijit, Lifeng Shen. 2013. Gender differences in trust and
trustworthiness: Individuals, single sex and mixed sex groups. Journal of Economic Psychology 34,
181-194. [Crossref]
989. Peter McGee, Stelios Constantinides. 2013. Repeated play and gender in the ultimatum game. The
Journal of Socio-Economics 42, 121-126. [Crossref]
990. F. C. Fang, J. W. Bennett, A. Casadevall. 2013. Males Are Overrepresented among Life Science
Researchers Committing Scientific Misconduct. mBio 4:1. . [Crossref]
991. Frederick Chen, Amanda Griffith, Allin Cottrell, Yue-Ling Wong. 2013. Behavioral Responses to
Epidemics in an Online Experiment: Using Virtual Diseases to Study Human Behavior. PLoS ONE
8:1, e52814. [Crossref]
992. Muriel Niederle, Carmit Segal, Lise Vesterlund. 2013. How Costly Is Diversity? Affirmative Action
in Light of Gender Differences in Competitiveness. Management Science 59:1, 1-16. [Crossref]
993. Marie-Laure Cabon-Dhersin, Nathalie Etchart-Vincent. 2013. COOPERATION: THE POWER
OF A SINGLE WORD? SOME EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE ON WORDING AND GENDER
EFFECTS IN A GAME OF CHICKEN. Bulletin of Economic Research 65:1, 43-64. [Crossref]
 994. Deborah Kerley Keisner, Kent D. Messer, William D. Schulze, Homa Zarghamee. 2013. Testing Social
Preferences for an Economic “Bad”: An Artefactual Field Experiment*. The Scandinavian Journal of
Economics 115:1, 27-61. [Crossref]
995. Armed Conflict Work Group of the In. 2013. Armed Conflict: A Model for Understanding and
Intervention. Death Studies 37:1, 61-88. [Crossref]
996. NABANITA DATTA GUPTA, ANDERS POULSEN, MARIE CLAIRE VILLEVAL. 2013.
GENDER MATCHING AND COMPETITIVENESS: EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. Economic
Inquiry 51:1, 816-835. [Crossref]
997. M. Fernanda Rivas. 2013. AN EXPERIMENT ON CORRUPTION AND GENDER. Bulletin of
Economic Research 65:1, 10-42. [Crossref]
998. S. Brana. 2013. Microcredit: an answer to the gender problem in funding?. Small Business Economics
40:1, 87-100. [Crossref]
999. PHILIP J. GROSSMAN. 2013. HOLDING FAST: THE PERSISTENCE AND DOMINANCE
OF GENDER STEREOTYPES. Economic Inquiry 51:1, 747-763. [Crossref]
1000. Yan Chen, Peter Katuščák, Emre Ozdenoren. 2013. Why canʼt a woman bid more like a man?. Games
and Economic Behavior 77:1, 181-213. [Crossref]
1001. Francis de Véricourt, Kriti Jain, J. Neil Bearden, Allan Filipowicz. 2013. Sex, risk and the newsvendor.
Journal of Operations Management 31:1-2, 86-92. [Crossref]
1002. Alberto F. Alesina, Francesca Lotti, Paolo Emilio Mistrulli. 2013. DO WOMEN PAY MORE FOR
CREDIT? EVIDENCE FROM ITALY. Journal of the European Economic Association 11, 45-66.
[Crossref]
1003. Xiaogang Chen, Jing Ma, Jiafei Jin, Patricia Fosh. 2013. Information Privacy and Affective
Commitment in Chinese Organizations. Journal of Global Information Technology Management 16:1,
30-57. [Crossref]
1004. Ibtissem Baklouti. 2013. Determinants of Microcredit Repayment: The Case of Tunisian
Microfinance Bank. African Development Review 25:3, 370. [Crossref]
1005. Tomas Dvorak, Shayna R Toubman. 2013. Are Women More Generous than Men? Evidence from
Alumni Donations. Eastern Economic Journal 39:1, 121-131. [Crossref]
1006. Niklas Jakobsson, Minna Levin, Andreas Kotsadam. 2013. Gender and Overconfidence: Effects
of Context, Gendered Stereotypes, and Peer Group. Advances in Applied Sociology 03:02, 137-141.
[Crossref]
1007. Prisca Brosi, Matthias Spörrle, Isabell M. Welpe, Jason D. Shaw. 2013. Evaluations of One’s Own
and Others’ Financial Rewards. Journal of Personnel Psychology 12:3, 105-114. [Crossref]
1008. Luigi Guiso, Paolo Sodini. Household Finance: An Emerging Field 1397-1532. [Crossref]
1009. Tina Malti, Michaela Gummerum, Monika Keller, Maria Paula Chaparro, Marlis Buchmann. 2012.
Early Sympathy and Social Acceptance Predict the Development of Sharing in Children. PLoS ONE
7:12, e52017. [Crossref]
1010. Werner Bönte, Monika Piegeler. 2012. Gender gap in latent and nascent entrepreneurship: driven by
competitiveness. Small Business Economics . [Crossref]
1011. Mehdi Nekhili, Hayette Gatfaoui. 2012. Are Demographic Attributes and Firm Characteristics Drivers
of Gender Diversity? Investigating Women’s Positions on French Boards of Directors. Journal of
Business Ethics . [Crossref]
1012. Kyle Hyndman, Erkut Y. Ozbay, Pacharasut Sujarittanonta. 2012. Rent seeking with regretful agents:
Theory and experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 84:3, 866-878. [Crossref]
1013. Jason A. Aimone, Daniel Houser. 2012. What you don’t know won’t hurt you: a laboratory analysis
of betrayal aversion. Experimental Economics 15:4, 571-588. [Crossref]
1014. Catherine C. Eckel, Philip J. Grossman, Cathleen A. Johnson, Angela C. M. Oliveira, Christian Rojas,
Rick K. Wilson. 2012. School environment and risk preferences: Experimental evidence. Journal of
Risk and Uncertainty 45:3, 265-292. [Crossref]
1015. Anne Boschini, Astri Muren, Mats Persson. 2012. Constructing gender differences in the economics
lab. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 84:3, 741-752. [Crossref]
1016. Haoran He, Peter Martinsson, Matthias Sutter. 2012. Group decision making under risk: An
experiment with student couples. Economics Letters 117:3, 691-693. [Crossref]
1017. Christiane Schwieren. 2012. The gender wage gap in experimental labor markets. Economics Letters
117:3, 592-595. [Crossref]
1018. Inga-Lill Söderberg. 2012. Gender stereotyping in financial advisors’ assessment of customers. Journal
of Financial Services Marketing 17:4, 259-272. [Crossref]
1019. S. Lamba, R. Mace. 2012. The evolution of fairness: explaining variation in bargaining behaviour.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 280:1750, 20122028-20122028. [Crossref]
1020. John Rand, Nina Torm. 2012. The informal sector wage gap among Vietnamese micro-firms. Journal
of the Asia Pacific Economy 17:4, 560-577. [Crossref]
1021. Marie-Pierre Dargnies. 2012. Men Too Sometimes Shy Away from Competition: The Case of Team
Competition. Management Science 58:11, 1982-2000. [Crossref]
1022. Núria Rodríguez-Planas. 2012. Mentoring, educational services, and incentives to learn: What do we
know about them?. Evaluation and Program Planning 35:4, 481-490. [Crossref]
1023. Jonathan Robinson. 2012. Limited Insurance within the Household: Evidence from a Field
Experiment in Kenya. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 4:4, 140-164. [Abstract] [View
PDF article] [PDF with links]
1024. SIMON GÄCHTER, DANIELE NOSENZO, ELKE RENNER, MARTIN SEFTON. 2012.
WHO MAKES A GOOD LEADER? COOPERATIVENESS, OPTIMISM, AND LEADING-BY-
EXAMPLE. Economic Inquiry 50:4, 953-967. [Crossref]
1025. Arnstein Øvrum, Frode Alfnes, Valérie L. Almli, Kyrre Rickertsen. 2012. Health information and diet
choices: Results from a cheese experiment. Food Policy 37:5, 520-529. [Crossref]
1026. Claudio Lucchiari, Gabriella Pravettoni. 2012. The Effect of Brand on EEG Modulation. Swiss Journal
of Psychology 71:4, 199-204. [Crossref]
1027. Timothy R. Campellone, Ann M. Kring. 2012. Who do you trust? The impact of facial emotion and
behaviour on decision making. Cognition & Emotion 1-18. [Crossref]
1028. Andrew van Hulten. 2012. Women's access to SME finance in Australia. International Journal of
Gender and Entrepreneurship 4:3, 266-288. [Crossref]
1029. Nina Torm. 2012. THE ROLE OF TRADE UNIONS IN VIETNAM: A CASE STUDY OF
SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES. Journal of International Development n/a-n/a. [Crossref]
1030. Rapheal Andrew Luccasen. 2012. Individual Differences In Contributions And Crowding-Out Of A
Public Good. Scottish Journal of Political Economy 59:4, 419-441. [Crossref]
1031. Jingnan Chen, Daniel Houser. 2012. Non-human Primate Studies Inform the Foundations of Fair
and Just Human Institutions. Social Justice Research 25:3, 277-297. [Crossref]
1032. M. Elinder, O. Erixson. 2012. Gender, social norms, and survival in maritime disasters. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences 109:33, 13220-13224. [Crossref]
1033. Nicole Schneeweis, Martina Zweimüller. 2012. Girls, girls, girls: Gender composition and female
school choice. Economics of Education Review 31:4, 482-500. [Crossref]
1034. Christian Thöni, Jean-Robert Tyran, Erik Wengström. 2012. Microfoundations of social capital.
Journal of Public Economics 96:7-8, 635-643. [Crossref]
1035. Dino Falaschetti. 2012. A Sex Difference in Risk Taking and Promotions in Hierarchies: Evidence
from Females in Legislatures. The Journal of Law and Economics 55:3, 477-502. [Crossref]
1036. Lee Ellis, Malini Ratnasingam, Mary Wheeler. 2012. Gender, sexual orientation, and occupational
interests: Evidence of their interrelatedness. Personality and Individual Differences 53:1, 64-69.
[Crossref]
1037. Friedhelm Pfeiffer, Nico Johannes Schulz. 2012. Gregariousness, interactive jobs and wages. Journal
for Labour Market Research 45:2, 147-159. [Crossref]
1038. Matteo Migheli. 2012. Do the Vietnamese Support the Economic Doi Moi ?. Journal of Development
Studies 48:7, 939-968. [Crossref]
1039. Ravinder Koul, Laura Roy, Thanita Lerdpornkulrat. 2012. Motivational goal orientation, perceptions
of biology and physics classroom learning environments, and gender. Learning Environments Research
15:2, 217-229. [Crossref]
1040. Helga Fehr-Duda, Thomas Epper. 2012. Probability and Risk: Foundations and Economic
Implications of Probability-Dependent Risk Preferences. Annual Review of Economics 4:1, 567-593.
[Crossref]
1041. Azucena Gracia, Tiziana de Magistris, Rodolfo M. Nayga. 2012. Importance of Social Influence in
Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Local Food: Are There Gender Differences?. Agribusiness 28:3,
361-371. [Crossref]
1042. Marja-Liisa Halko, Markku Kaustia, Elias Alanko. 2012. The gender effect in risky asset holdings.
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 83:1, 66-81. [Crossref]
1043. Sigrid Suetens, Jean-Robert Tyran. 2012. The gambler's fallacy and gender. Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization 83:1, 118-124. [Crossref]
1044. Binglin Gong, Chun-Lei Yang. 2012. Gender differences in risk attitudes: Field experiments on the
matrilineal Mosuo and the patriarchal Yi. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 83:1, 59-65.
[Crossref]
1045. Robin M. Hogarth, Natalia Karelaia, Carlos Andrés Trujillo. 2012. When should I quit? Gender
differences in exiting competitions. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 83:1, 136-150.
[Crossref]
1046. Juan-Camilo Cárdenas, Anna Dreber, Emma von Essen, Eva Ranehill. 2012. Gender differences in
competitiveness and risk taking: Comparing children in Colombia and Sweden. Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization 83:1, 11-23. [Crossref]
1047. Thomas Buser. 2012. The impact of the menstrual cycle and hormonal contraceptives on
competitiveness. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 83:1, 1-10. [Crossref]
1048. Loukas Balafoutas, Rudolf Kerschbamer, Matthias Sutter. 2012. Distributional preferences and
competitive behavior. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 83:1, 125-135. [Crossref]
1049. Matthias Heinz, Steffen Juranek, Holger A. Rau. 2012. Do women behave more reciprocally than
men? Gender differences in real effort dictator games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
83:1, 105-110. [Crossref]
1050. Gary Charness, Uri Gneezy. 2012. Strong Evidence for Gender Differences in Risk Taking. Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization 83:1, 50-58. [Crossref]
1051. Alice Wieland, Rakesh Sarin. 2012. Domain specificity of sex differences in competition. Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization 83:1, 151-157. [Crossref]
1052. Jordi Brandts, Orsola Garofalo. 2012. Gender pairings and accountability effects. Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization 83:1, 31-41. [Crossref]
1053. Luis Miller, Paloma Ubeda. 2012. Are women more sensitive to the decision-making context?. Journal
of Economic Behavior & Organization 83:1, 98-104. [Crossref]
1054. Laszlo Goerke, Markus Pannenberg. 2012. Risk Aversion and Trade-Union Membership*. The
Scandinavian Journal of Economics 114:2, 275-295. [Crossref]
1055. Nikos Nikiforakis, Charles N. Noussair, Tom Wilkening. 2012. Normative conflict & feuds: The
limits of self-enforcement. Journal of Public Economics . [Crossref]
1056. Seda Ertac, Mehmet Y. Gurdal. 2012. Deciding to decide: Gender, leadership and risk-taking in
groups. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 83:1, 24-30. [Crossref]
1057. Aurora García-Gallego, Nikolaos Georgantzís, Ainhoa Jaramillo-Gutiérrez. 2012. Gender differences
in ultimatum games: Despite rather than due to risk attitudes. Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization 83:1, 42-49. [Crossref]
1058. Julia Müller, Christiane Schwieren. 2012. Can personality explain what is underlying women’s
unwillingness to compete?. Journal of Economic Psychology 33:3, 448-460. [Crossref]
1059. Kavitha Ranganathan, Srinivas Prakhya. 2012. Global Shapes of Preference Scaling Functions. Journal
of Interdisciplinary Economics 24:2, 145-172. [Crossref]
1060. W.J.W. Botzen, J.C.J.M. van den Bergh. 2012. Risk attitudes to low-probability climate change risks:
WTP for flood insurance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 82:1, 151-166. [Crossref]
1061. Sanjiv Erat, Uri Gneezy. 2012. White Lies. Management Science 58:4, 723-733. [Crossref]
1062. Sophie Steelandt, Valérie Dufour, Marie-Hélène Broihanne, Bernard Thierry. 2012. Children Base
Their Investment on Calculated Pay-Off. PLoS ONE 7:3, e33239. [Crossref]
1063. Bailey R. House, Joseph Henrich, Sarah F. Brosnan, Joan B. Silk. 2012. The ontogeny of human
prosociality: behavioral experiments with children aged 3 to 8. Evolution and Human Behavior .
[Crossref]
1064. Selim Jürgen Ergun, Teresa García-Muñoz, María Fernanda Rivas. 2012. Gender differences in
economic experiments. Revista Internacional de Sociología 70:Extra 1, 99-111. [Crossref]
1065. Pablo Brañas-Garza, Nikolaos Georgantzís. 2012. PRESENTATION. Experimental and behavioral
economics. Theory, tools and topics. Revista Internacional de Sociología 70:Extra 1, 9-13. [Crossref]
1066. Maria De Paola, Vincenzo Scoppa, Rosanna Nisticó. 2012. Monetary Incentives and Student
Achievement in a Depressed Labor Market: Results from a Randomized Experiment. Journal of
Human Capital 6:1, 56-85. [Crossref]
1067. Andreas Trauten, Thomas Langer. 2012. Information production and bidding in IPOs. Zeitschrift für
Betriebswirtschaft . [Crossref]
1068. M. C. Villeval. 2012. Ready, Steady, Compete. Science 335:6068, 544-545. [Crossref]
1069. L. Balafoutas, M. Sutter. 2012. Affirmative Action Policies Promote Women and Do Not Harm
Efficiency in the Laboratory. Science 335:6068, 579-582. [Crossref]
1070. Patrik Gränsmark. 2012. Masters of our time: Impatience and self-control in high-level chess games.
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization . [Crossref]
1071. Martin Kocher, Peter Martinsson, Martine Visser. 2012. Social background, cooperative behavior, and
norm enforcement. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 81:2, 341-354. [Crossref]
1072. Soo Hong Chew, Richard P. Ebstein, Songfa Zhong. 2012. Ambiguity aversion and familiarity bias:
Evidence from behavioral and gene association studies. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 44:1, 1-18.
[Crossref]
1073. Jaromír Kovářík, Pablo Brañas-Garza, Ramón Cobo-Reyes, María Paz Espinosa, Natalia Jiménez,
Giovanni Ponti. 2012. Prosocial norms and degree heterogeneity in social networks. Physica A:
Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 391:3, 849-853. [Crossref]
1074. Alison Booth, Patrick Nolen. 2012. Choosing to compete: How different are girls and boys?. Journal
of Economic Behavior & Organization 81:2, 542-555. [Crossref]
1075. Renée B. Adams, Patricia Funk. 2012. Beyond the Glass Ceiling: Does Gender Matter?. Management
Science 58:2, 219-235. [Crossref]
1076. Cecile Jackson. 2012. Internal and External Validity in Experimental Games: A Social Reality Check.
The European Journal of Development Research 24:1, 71-88. [Crossref]
1077. Caleb Kwong, Dylan Jones‐Evans, Piers Thompson. 2012. Differences in perceptions of access to
finance between potential male and female entrepreneurs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behavior & Research 18:1, 75-97. [Crossref]
1078. Talia Bar,, Asaf Zussman. 2012. Partisan Grading. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 4:1,
30-48. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
1079. Sampath Kumar Ranganathan, Sandipan Sen. 2012. Examining charitable donation process in South
India: role of gender. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing n/a-n/a.
[Crossref]
1080. Tracey H. Sach, David K. Whynes. 2012. Sex, self-interest and health care priorities. The Journal of
Socio-Economics 41:1, 1-7. [Crossref]
1081. Martijn J. van den Assem, Dennie van Dolder, Richard H. Thaler. 2012. Split or Steal? Cooperative
Behavior When the Stakes Are Large. Management Science 58:1, 2-20. [Crossref]
1082. Patricia Justino, Olga N Shemyakina. 2012. Remittances and labor supply in post-conflict Tajikistan.
IZA Journal of Labor & Development 1:1, 8. [Crossref]
1083. Bernd Hayo, Björn Vollan. 2012. Group interaction, heterogeneity, rules, and co-operative behaviour:
Evidence from a common-pool resource experiment in South Africa and Namibia. Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization 81:1, 9-28. [Crossref]
1084. Jose Apesteguia, Ghazala Azmat, Nagore Iriberri. 2012. The Impact of Gender Composition on
Team Performance and Decision Making: Evidence from the Field. Management Science 58:1, 78-93.
[Crossref]
1085. Linda Kamas, Anne Preston. 2012. Gender and Social Preferences in the US: An Experimental Study.
Feminist Economics 18:1, 135-160. [Crossref]
1086. Ellen K. Nyhus, Empar Pons. 2012. Personality and the gender wage gap. Applied Economics 44:1,
105-118. [Crossref]
1087. K. Brick, M. Visser, J. Burns. 2012. Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing
Communities. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 94:1, 133-152. [Crossref]
1088. Isabelle Maque, Audrey Becuwe, Isabelle Prim-Allaz, Alice Garnier. Profiting from Diversity in the
Banking Sector 186-209. [Crossref]
1089. Fredrik Carlsson, Åsa Löfgren, Thomas Sterner. 2012. Discrimination in Scientific Review: A Natural
Field Experiment on Blind versus Non-Blind Reviews*. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics no-
no. [Crossref]
1090. Michael D.S. Morris. Using Panel Data to Examine Racial and Gender Differences in Debt Burdens
305-325. [Crossref]
1091. Jared L. Peifer. Socially Responsible Investing and The Power to do Good: Whose Dollars are being
Heard? 103-129. [Crossref]
1092. Ananish Chaudhuri. Chapter 2 Gender and Corruption: A Survey of the Experimental Evidence 13-49.
[Crossref]
1093. June-Young Lee, Ji-Young Jung. 2011. Study on the Gender Differences of Financial Risk Tolerance.
Journal of the Korean Home Economics Association 49:10, 1-13. [Crossref]
1094. Pablo Brañas-Garza, Aldo Rustichini. 2011. Organizing Effects of Testosterone and Economic
Behavior: Not Just Risk Taking. PLoS ONE 6:12, e29842. [Crossref]
1095. John Ifcher,, Homa Zarghamee. 2011. Happiness and Time Preference: The Effect of Positive Affect
in a Random-Assignment Experiment. American Economic Review 101:7, 3109-3129. [Abstract] [View
PDF article] [PDF with links]
1096. Laszlo Goerke, Markus Pannenberg. 2011. Risk Aversion, Collective Bargaining, and Wages in
Germany. LABOUR no-no. [Crossref]
1097. Lorenzo Cappellari, Paolo Ghinetti, Gilberto Turati. 2011. On time and money donations. The Journal
of Socio-Economics 40:6, 853-867. [Crossref]
1098. Seda Ertac. 2011. Does self-relevance affect information processing? Experimental evidence on the
response to performance and non-performance feedback. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
80:3, 532-545. [Crossref]
1099. Catherine Eckel, Philip J. Grossman, Cathleen A. Johnson, Angela C.M. de Oliveira, Christian Rojas,
Rick Wilson. 2011. Social norms of sharing in high school: Teen giving in the dictator game. Journal
of Economic Behavior & Organization 80:3, 603-612. [Crossref]
1100. Debra J. Mesch, Melissa S. Brown, Zachary I. Moore, Amir Daniel Hayat. 2011. Gender differences
in charitable giving. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 16:4, 342-355.
[Crossref]
1101. Sue Parkinson, Claire Lowe, Therese Vecsey. 2011. The Therapeutic Benefits of Horticulture in a
Mental Health Service. British Journal of Occupational Therapy 74:11, 525-534. [Crossref]
1102. Miriam Bruhn, Inessa Love. 2011. Gender differences in the impact of banking services: evidence
from Mexico. Small Business Economics . [Crossref]
1103. Andres J. Vargas. 2011. The Effect of Social Security Contributions on Coverage and Wages: A Gender
Perspective Using a Natural Experiment from Colombia. Southern Economic Journal 78:2, 476-501.
[Crossref]
1104. John Rand, Nina Torm. 2011. The Benefits of Formalization: Evidence from Vietnamese
Manufacturing SMEs. World Development . [Crossref]
1105. Jason Childs. 2011. Gender differences in lying. Economics Letters . [Crossref]
1106. Sherry Xin Li, Catherine C. Eckel, Philip J. Grossman, Tara Larson Brown. 2011. Giving to
government: Voluntary taxation in the lab. Journal of Public Economics 95:9-10, 1190-1201. [Crossref]
1107. Louis Putterman, Jean-Robert Tyran, Kenju Kamei. 2011. Public goods and voting on formal sanction
schemes. Journal of Public Economics 95:9-10, 1213-1222. [Crossref]
1108. Anne Boschini, Astri Muren, Mats Persson. 2011. Men among men do not take norm enforcement
seriously. The Journal of Socio-Economics 40:5, 523-529. [Crossref]
1109. Andreas Leibbrandt, Raúl López-Pérez. 2011. The Dark Side of Altruistic Third-Party Punishment.
Journal of Conflict Resolution 55:5, 761-784. [Crossref]
1110. X. Pan, D. Houser. 2011. Mating Strategies and Gender Differences in Pro-sociality: Theory and
Evidence. CESifo Economic Studies . [Crossref]
1111. David R. Ellis. 2011. Exploring cultural dimensions as predictors of performance management
preferences: the case of self-initiating expatriate New Zealanders in Belgium. The International Journal
of Human Resource Management 1-21. [Crossref]
1112. Stephen J. Choi, Mitu Gulati, Mirya Holman, Eric A. Posner. 2011. Judging Women. Journal of
Empirical Legal Studies 8:3, 504-532. [Crossref]
1113. Matthias Keese. 2011. Who feels constrained by high debt burdens? Subjective vs. objective measures
of household debt. Journal of Economic Psychology . [Crossref]
1114. Muriel Niederle, Lise Vesterlund. 2011. Gender and Competition. Annual Review of Economics 3:1,
601-630. [Crossref]
1115. Andrew Healy, Jennifer Pate. 2011. Can Teams Help to Close the Gender Competition Gap?. The
Economic Journal 121:555, 1192-1204. [Crossref]
1116. Anna Dreber, David G. Rand, Nils Wernerfelt, Justin R. Garcia, Miguel G. Vilar, J. Koji Lum,
Richard Zeckhauser. 2011. Dopamine and risk choices in different domains: Findings among serious
tournament bridge players. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 43:1, 19-38. [Crossref]
1117. Kaisa Kotakorpi, Panu Poutvaara. 2011. Pay for politicians and candidate selection: An empirical
analysis. Journal of Public Economics 95:7-8, 877-885. [Crossref]
1118. Anna Folke Larsen, John Rand, Nina Torm. 2011. Do Recruitment Ties Affect Wages? An Analysis
using Matched Employer-Employee Data from Vietnam. Review of Development Economics 15:3,
541-555. [Crossref]
1119. Karin Jacobsen, Kari H. Eika, Leif Helland, Jo Thori Lind, Karine Nyborg. 2011. Are nurses more
altruistic than real estate brokers?. Journal of Economic Psychology . [Crossref]
1120. John M. Anderies, Marco A. Janssen, François Bousquet, Juan-Camilo Cardenas, Daniel Castillo,
Maria-Claudio Lopez, Robert Tobias, Björn Vollan, Amber Wutich. 2011. The challenge of
understanding decisions in experimental studies of common pool resource governance. Ecological
Economics 70:9, 1571-1579. [Crossref]
1121. Cecile Jackson. 2011. Research with experimental games. Progress in Development Studies 11:3,
229-241. [Crossref]
1122. Johanna M. M. Goertz. 2011. Market composition and experience in common-value auctions.
Experimental Economics . [Crossref]
1123. King King Li. 2011. Preference towards control in risk taking: Control, no control, or randomize?.
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty . [Crossref]
1124. Vanessa Mertins, Andrea B. Schote, Wolfgang Hoffeld, Michele Griessmair, Jobst Meyer. 2011.
Genetic Susceptibility for Individual Cooperation Preferences: The Role of Monoamine Oxidase A
Gene (MAOA) in the Voluntary Provision of Public Goods. PLoS ONE 6:6, e20959. [Crossref]
1125. Catherine C. Eckel,, Ragan Petrie. 2011. Face Value. American Economic Review 101:4, 1497-1513.
[Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
1126. Radosveta Ivanova-Stenzel, Dorothea Kübler. 2011. Gender Differences in Team Work and Team
Competition. Journal of Economic Psychology . [Crossref]
1127. Daniel G. Arce, Sherry Xin Li. 2011. Profits, Layoffs, and Priorities. Journal of Business Ethics 101:1,
49-60. [Crossref]
1128. Noel D. Johnson, Alexandra A. Mislin. 2011. Trust Games: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Economic
Psychology . [Crossref]
1129. Hari Bansha Dulal, Roberto Foa, Stephen Knowles. 2011. Social Capital and Cross-Country
Environmental Performance. The Journal of Environment & Development 20:2, 121-144. [Crossref]
1130. Bernd Frick. 2011. Gender Differences in Competitive Orientations: Empirical Evidence from
Ultramarathon Running. Journal of Sports Economics 12:3, 317-340. [Crossref]
1131. Tibor Besedeš, Cary Deck, Sudipta Sarangi, Mikhael Shor. 2011. Age Effects and Heuristics in
Decision Making. Review of Economics and Statistics 120224102436000. [Crossref]
1132. Desislava Ivanova Yordanova, Matilda Ivanova Alexandrova‐Boshnakova. 2011. Gender effects on risk‐
taking of entrepreneurs: evidence from Bulgaria. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior &
Research 17:3, 272-295. [Crossref]
1133. Jonas Månsson, Lennart Delander. 2011. Gender differences in active labour market policy: The
Swedish self‐employment programme. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 30:4,
278-296. [Crossref]
1134. Kristoffer W. Eriksen, Ola Kvaløy, Trond E. Olsen. 2011. Tournaments with Prize-setting Agents*.
Scandinavian Journal of Economics no-no. [Crossref]
1135. Sten Anspal, Janno Järve. 2011. Downward Nominal Wage Rigidity and Gender. LABOUR no-no.
[Crossref]
1136. Signe Krogstrup, Sébastien Wälti. 2011. Women and Budget Deficits*. Scandinavian Journal of
Economics no-no. [Crossref]
1137. Thomas Dohmen,, Armin Falk. 2011. Performance Pay and Multidimensional Sorting: Productivity,
Preferences, and Gender. American Economic Review 101:2, 556-590. [Abstract] [View PDF article]
[PDF with links]
1138. Hans-Martin von Gaudecker,, Arthur van Soest,, Erik WengstrÖm. 2011. Heterogeneity in Risky
Choice Behavior in a Broad Population. American Economic Review 101:2, 664-694. [Abstract] [View
PDF article] [PDF with links]
1139. Andrew Hussey. 2011. The effect of ethics on labor market success: Evidence from MBAs. Journal
of Economic Behavior & Organization . [Crossref]
1140. Ananish Chaudhuri, Erwann Sbai. 2011. Gender differences in trust and reciprocity in repeated gift
exchange games. New Zealand Economic Papers 45:1, 81-95. [Crossref]
1141. Michael E. Price, Jinsheng Kang, James Dunn, Sian Hopkins. 2011. Muscularity and attractiveness
as predictors of human egalitarianism. Personality and Individual Differences 50:5, 636-640. [Crossref]
1142. Michal Krawczyk. 2011. What brings your subjects to the lab? A field experiment. Experimental
Economics . [Crossref]
1143. R. Urbatsch. 2011. Sibling Ideological Influence: A Natural Experiment. British Journal of Political
Science 1-20. [Crossref]
1144. Liyin Jin, Yanqun He, Haiyan Song. 2011. Service customization: To upgrade or to downgrade?
An investigation of how option framing affects tourists??? choice of package-tour services. Tourism
Management . [Crossref]
1145. Anna D. Sinaiko, Richard A. Hirth. 2011. Consumers, health insurance and dominated choices.
Journal of Health Economics 30:2, 450-457. [Crossref]
1146. L. Dahlbom, A. Jakobsson, N. Jakobsson, A. Kotsadam. 2011. Gender and overconfidence: are girls
really overconfident?. Applied Economics Letters 18:4, 325-327. [Crossref]
1147. Graziella Bertocchi, Marianna Brunetti, Costanza Torricelli. 2011. Marriage and other risky assets: A
portfolio approach. Journal of Banking & Finance . [Crossref]
1148. Luca Corazzini, Lucio Esposito, Francesca Majorano. 2011. Reign in hell or serve in heaven? A cross-
country journey into the relative vs absolute perceptions of wellbeing. Journal of Economic Behavior
& Organization . [Crossref]
1149. Ellen Garbarino, Robert Slonim, Justin Sydnor. 2011. Digit ratios (2D:4D) as predictors of risky
decision making for both sexes. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 42:1, 1-26. [Crossref]
1150. Björn Frank, Johann Graf Lambsdorff, Frédéric Boehm. 2011. Gender and Corruption: Lessons from
Laboratory Corruption Experiments. The European Journal of Development Research 23:1, 59-71.
[Crossref]
1151. John Rand, Finn Tarp. 2011. Does Gender Influence the Provision of Fringe Benefits? Evidence From
Vietnamese SMEs. Feminist Economics 17:1, 59-87. [Crossref]
1152. Johan Almenberg, Anna Dreber. 2011. When Does the Price Affect the Taste? Results from a Wine
Experiment. Journal of Wine Economics 6:01, 111-121. [Crossref]
1153. Bertrand Marianne. New Perspectives on Gender 1543-1590. [Crossref]
1154. Donald Vandegrift, Abdullah Yavas. 2011. An experimental test of behavior under team production.
Managerial and Decision Economics 32:1, 35-51. [Crossref]
1155. Ali Ahmed. 2011. Women are not always less competitive than men: evidence from Come Dine with
Me. Applied Economics Letters 1-3. [Crossref]
1156. Andrea Bellucci, Alexander Borisov, Alberto Zazzaro. Do Male and Female Loan Officers Differ in
Small Business Lending? A Review of the Literature 195-219. [Crossref]
1157. Y. Georgellis, E. Iossa, V. Tabvuma. 2010. Crowding Out Intrinsic Motivation in the Public Sector.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory . [Crossref]
1158. Sheryl Ball, Catherine C. Eckel, Maria Heracleous. 2010. Risk aversion and physical prowess:
Prediction, choice and bias. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 41:3, 167-193. [Crossref]
1159. Andrea Bellucci, Alexander Borisov, Alberto Zazzaro. 2010. Does gender matter in bank–firm
relationships? Evidence from small business lending. Journal of Banking & Finance 34:12, 2968-2984.
[Crossref]
1160. Thorsten Faas, Sascha Huber. 2010. Experimente in der Politikwissenschaft: Vom Mauerblümchen
zum Mainstream. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 51:4, 721-749. [Crossref]
1161. Kris Ewing, Kim Beckert, Bradley Ewing. 2010. The response of US college enrollment to unexpected
changes in macroeconomic activity. Education Economics 18:4, 423-434. [Crossref]
1162. Bernd Frick. 2010. Gender differences in competitiveness: Empirical evidence from professional
distance running. Labour Economics . [Crossref]
1163. Ravinder Koul, Thanita Lerdpornkulrat, Soontornpathai Chantara. 2010. Relationship Between
Career Aspirations and Measures of Motivation Toward Biology and Physics, and the Influence of
Gender. Journal of Science Education and Technology . [Crossref]
1164. Scott S. Wiltermuth. 2010. Cheating more when the spoils are split. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes . [Crossref]
1165. Jason Abrevaya, Daniel S. Hamermesh. 2010. Charity and Favoritism in the Field: Are Female
Economists Nicer (to Each Other)?. Review of Economics and Statistics 111118093911002. [Crossref]
1166. Fredrik Carlsson, Jorge H. García, Åsa Löfgren. 2010. Conformity and the Demand for Environmental
Goods. Environmental and Resource Economics 47:3, 407-421. [Crossref]
1167. Robert Slonim, Pablo Guillen. 2010. Gender selection discrimination: Evidence from a Trust game.
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 76:2, 385-405. [Crossref]
1168. Sylvia Maxfield, Mary Shapiro, Vipin Gupta, Susan Hass. 2010. Gender and risk: women, risk taking
and risk aversion. Gender in Management: An International Journal 25:7, 586-604. [Crossref]
1169. Colin P. Green, John S. Heywood. 2010. Profit sharing and the quality of relations with the boss.
Labour Economics 17:5, 859-867. [Crossref]
1170. Christer Gerdes, Patrik Gränsmark. 2010. Strategic behavior across gender: A comparison of female
and male expert chess players. Labour Economics 17:5, 766-775. [Crossref]
1171. Natalia Karelaia, Robin M. Hogarth. 2010. The attraction of uncertainty: Interactions between skill
and levels of uncertainty in market-entry games. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 41:2, 141-166.
[Crossref]
1172. Lars Bo Jeppesen, Karim R. Lakhani. 2010. Marginality and Problem-Solving Effectiveness in
Broadcast Search. Organization Science 21:5, 1016-1033. [Crossref]
1173. Alessandro Bucciol, Raffaele Miniaci. 2010. Household Portfolios and Implicit Risk Preference.
Review of Economics and Statistics 110823094915005. [Crossref]
1174. Daniel J. Benjamin,, James J. Choi,, A. Joshua Strickland. 2010. Social Identity and Preferences.
American Economic Review 100:4, 1913-1928. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
1175. C. Bram Cadsby, Maroš Servátka, Fei Song. 2010. Gender and generosity: does degree of anonymity
or group gender composition matter?. Experimental Economics 13:3, 299-308. [Crossref]
1176. Sarah Thébaud. 2010. Gender and Entrepreneurship as a Career Choice. Social Psychology Quarterly
73:3, 288-304. [Crossref]
1177. Gary Charness, Aldo Rustichini. 2010. Gender differences in cooperation with group membership.
Games and Economic Behavior . [Crossref]
1178. CAGRI S. KUMRU, LISE VESTERLUND. 2010. The Effect of Status on Charitable Giving.
Journal of Public Economic Theory 12:4, 709-735. [Crossref]
1179. Gerald Eisenkopf, Christian Lukas. 2010. Ability, individual development and optimal selection
decisions. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft 80:7-8, 821-839. [Crossref]
1180. Alison Snow Jones, Kevin D. Frick. 2010. The Roles of Women's Health and Education in Family
and Societal Health. Women's Health Issues 20:4, 231-233. [Crossref]
1181. Yannis Georgellis, Vurain Tabvuma. 2010. Does Public Service Motivation Adapt?. Kyklos 63:2,
176-191. [Crossref]
1182. Andrea Weber, Christine Zulehner. 2010. Female Hires and the Success of Start-up Firms. American
Economic Review 100:2, 358-361. [Crossref]
1183. MARCO CASTILLO, RAGAN PETRIE, MAXIMO TORERO. 2010. ON THE PREFERENCES
OF PRINCIPALS AND AGENTS. Economic Inquiry 48:2, 266-273. [Crossref]
1184. Arthur Sakamoto, Changhwan Kim. 2010. Is Rising Earnings Inequality Associated with Increased
Exploitation? Evidence for U.S. Manufacturing Industries, 1971?1996. Sociological Perspectives 53:1,
19-43. [Crossref]
1185. Shun-Yao Tseng, Chyan Yang. Risk aversion, information searches, and distinct risky investment
preference: The moderator effect of gender on risk aversion 718-722. [Crossref]
1186. Hans J. Czap, Natalia V. Czap, Esmail Bonakdarian. 2010. Walk the Talk? The Effect of Voting and
Excludability in Public Goods Experiments. Economics Research International 2010, 1-15. [Crossref]
1187. Frédéric Basso, Olivier Oullier. 2009. When organization meets emotions, does the socio-relational
framework fail?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32:05, 391. [Crossref]
1188. Sonia San-Martín. Are Signals a Solution to Perceived Risk and Opportunism in Mobile Shopping?
1-24. [Crossref]
1189. Jared Z. Ferrell, Jacqueline E. Carpenter, E. Daly Vaughn, Nikki M. Dudley, Scott A. Goodman.
Gamification of Human Resource Processes 108-139. [Crossref]
1190. Nadia Simoes, Sandrina B. Moreira, Nuno Crespo. Determinants of Self-Employment Entry 405-430.
[Crossref]
1191. Yasuhiro Nakamoto, Masayuki Sato. Gender Differences, Social Loss Aversion and Sports Performance
in Japanese Schoolchildren 1690-1708. [Crossref]
1192. Sonia San-Martín. Are Signals a Solution to Perceived Risk and Opportunism in Mobile Shopping?
1365-1389. [Crossref]
1193. Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar, María Deseada López Subires. Different Perceptions of Factors
Affecting the Financial Sustainability in Public Administrations 1-30. [Crossref]