IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v18y1974i4p707-713.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sex Differences as Artifact in the Prisoner's Dilemma Game

Author

Listed:
  • Vincent Skotko

    (Department of Psychology University of Cincinnati)

  • Daniel Langmeyer

    (Department of Psychology University of Cincinnati)

  • David Lundgren

    (Department of Psychology University of Cincinnati)

Abstract

Female subject pairs have often been found to compete more than either male pairs or mixed sex pairs in the Prisoner's Dilemma (PD) game. It was hypothesized that sex differences in the PD were in part a function of the sex of the experimenter. Three males and three females served as experimenters. The hypothesis was supported for, although females evidenced higher competition with male Es, no sex differences were found with female Es. Female subject pairs were, however, the only pairs which evidenced significant differences in level of competition under male and female Es. Results were discussed in terms of greater sensitivity on the part of female Ss than male Ss to characteristics of both the partner and the E. Implications for the design of experimental investigation of sex differences were also considered.

Suggested Citation

  • Vincent Skotko & Daniel Langmeyer & David Lundgren, 1974. "Sex Differences as Artifact in the Prisoner's Dilemma Game," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 18(4), pages 707-713, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:18:y:1974:i:4:p:707-713
    DOI: 10.1177/002200277401800411
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/002200277401800411
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/002200277401800411?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stuart Oskamp & Daniel Perlman, 1965. "Factors affecting cooperation in a Prisoner's Dilemma game," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 9(3), pages 359-374, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jack E. Vincent & James O. Tindell, 1969. "Alternative cooperative strategies in a bargaining game," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 13(4), pages 494-510, December.
    2. Herbert W. Kee & Robert E. Knox, 1970. "Conceptual and methodological considerations in the study of trust and suspicion," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 14(3), pages 357-366, September.
    3. Jack E. Vincent & Edward W. Schwerin, 1971. "Ratios of force and escalation in a game situation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 15(4), pages 489-511, December.
    4. Carol J. Orwant & Jack E. Orwant, 1970. "A comparison of interpreted and abstract versions of mixed-motive games," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 14(1), pages 91-97, March.
    5. Chen-Bo Zhong & Jeffrey Loewenstein & J. Keith Murnighan, 2007. "Speaking the Same Language," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 51(3), pages 431-456, June.
    6. E. Alan Hartman, 1980. "Motivational Bases of Sex Differences in Choice Behavior," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 24(3), pages 455-475, September.
    7. Vi Cao, 2022. "An epistemic approach to explaining cooperation in the finitely repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 51(1), pages 53-85, March.
    8. Robert Axelrod, 1967. "Conflict of interest: an axiomatic approach," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 11(1), pages 87-99, March.
    9. Donnel Wallace & Paul Rothaus, 1969. "Communication, group loyalty, and trust in the PD game," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 13(3), pages 370-380, September.
    10. Barbara Lichner Ingram & Stephen E. Berger, 1977. "Sex-Role Orientation, Defensiveness, and Competitiveness in Women," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 21(3), pages 501-518, September.
    11. Stuart Oskamp & Daniel Perlman, 1966. "Effects of friendship and disliking on cooperation in a mixed-motive game1," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 10(2), pages 221-226, June.
    12. Chester A. Insko & John Schopler & Stephen M. Drigotas & Kenneth A. Graetz & James Kennedy & Chante Cox & Garry Bornstein, 1993. "The Role of Communication in Interindividual-Intergroup Discontinuity," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(1), pages 108-138, March.
    13. Anatol Rapoport, 1975. "Comments on “When Martyrdom Paysâ€," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 19(4), pages 663-664, December.
    14. Kenneth W. Terhune, 1974. ""Wash-In," "Wash-Out," and Systemic Effects in Extended Prisoner's Dilemma," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 18(4), pages 656-685, December.
    15. William M. Knapp & Jerome E. Podell, 1968. "Mental patients, prisoners, and students with simulated partners in a mixed-motive game," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 12(2), pages 235-241, June.
    16. Matthew W. Steele & James T. Tedeschi, 1967. "Matrix indices and strategy choices in mixed-motive games," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 11(2), pages 198-205, June.

    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:sae:jocore:v:18:y:1974:i:4:p:707-713. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    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.