IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/qjecon/v140y2025i1p403-458..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Believed Gender Differences in Social Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Christine L Exley
  • Oliver P Hauser
  • Molly Moore
  • John-Henry Pezzuto

Abstract

While there is a vast (and mixed) literature on gender differences in social preferences, little is known about believed gender differences in social preferences. Using data from 15 studies and 8,979 individuals, we find that women are believed to be more generous and more equality-oriented than men. This believed gender gap is robust across a wide range of contexts that vary in terms of strategic considerations, selfish motives, fairness concepts, and payoffs. Yet this believed gender gap is largely inaccurate. Consistent with models of associative memory, specifically the role of similarity and interference, the believed gender gap is correlated with recalled prior life experiences from similar contexts and significantly affected by an experience that may interfere with the recall process of prior memories, even though this interfering experience should not affect the beliefs of perfect-memory Bayesians. Application studies further reveal that believed gender differences extend to the household (i.e., beliefs about contributions to the home, family, and upbringing of children), the workplace (i.e., beliefs about equal pay), and policy views (i.e., beliefs about redistribution, equal access to education, healthcare, and affordable housing).

Suggested Citation

  • Christine L Exley & Oliver P Hauser & Molly Moore & John-Henry Pezzuto, 2025. "Believed Gender Differences in Social Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 140(1), pages 403-458.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:qjecon:v:140:y:2025:i:1:p:403-458.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/qje/qjae030
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:qjecon:v:140:y:2025:i:1:p:403-458.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/qje .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.