I’ll take gender differences for $800, Alex
A: This popular game show presents an elegant environment for studying the effects of gender on competition.
Q: What is Jeopardy?
Scores of studies have examined the differences between men and women when it comes to competition, but a recent paper called “Girls will be Girls – Especially among Boys” (pdf) takes a clever approach and yields some intriguing results.
In an attempt to understand why men outnumber women in intensely competitive, high-risk fields, two Swedish scientists, Jenny Säve-Söderbergh and Gabriella Sjögren Lindquist, analyzed data from the 2002 season of their native land’s version of Jeopardy!.
The rules of Swedish Jeopardy! are very similar to those of the American version: three contestants gaze up at a big board of categories, select clues that are rendered as answers, and respond in the form of a question. Each correct answer earns the contestant money; each incorrect answer has the opposite effect.
Säve-Söderbergh and Lindquist focused on how men and women play the Daily Double. As you may know, three Daily Doubles pop up randomly in each game. Only the contestant who uncovers the Daily Double gets to answer it, and he or she can wager on the answer any amount of their winnings. Säve-Söderbergh and Lindquist wondered if the gender of the Daily Double contestant or the gender of his or her opponents made any difference in how much a person bet.
Their findings: Yes, gender mattered — though not quite in the way the researchers expected.
First, Säve-Söderbergh and Lindquist found that overall women played more conservatively than men regardless of their opponents. On average, they wagered about 40% of their winnings on Daily Doubles, while men wagered about 60%.
Second, women took smaller risks when playing against two men than they did against a woman and a man or against two women. Women wagered about 22% less in male-dominated settings than they did in female-dominated ones. Men’s wagers were not affected by the gender of their opponents.
Third and perhaps most interesting, “Although women decrease their wagers when competing in a male-dominated environment, women do not differ from men in their performance in these games.”
In other words, women took smaller risks — especially when competing against men — but did just as well as men in their total results.
Of course, as Säve-Söderbergh and Lindquist themselves acknowledge, it’s tricky to extrapolate from a game show to real life. But the research does raise some interesting questions — and seems consonant with other analyses showing that women manage their money more conservatively but more effectively than men.
Please add your thoughts below if you’d like — but remember to do so in the form of a question.
What is “a function of variance and standard deviation?” [with regard to women taking smaller risks, but doing just as well.]
With Love and Gratitude,
Jeremiah
Great post. I’ve seen a great deal of real world examples of this behavior difference. I created a financial personality test and discovered females were more likely to be conservative but also that they tend to over spend on small items like clothing, shoes or kids activities, and more often on things perceived as “needs” where men seem to over spend on larger items like TV’s, Cars, and renovations things perceived as “wants”. We are fascinating creatures for sure!
I echo Jerimiah’s question. Is it that men and women have a similar mean of performance, but men have a wider standard deviation? If so, that would explain why there are more men at the very very top of a given field (and also why there are more at the bottom, which doesn’t get as much attention). Anyway, just speculating, not drawing conclusions.
David Kaiser, PhD
Time Coach
http://www.DarkMatterConsulting.com
“Time to be Extraordinary!”
When men dance ladies follow, right? When ladies dance they tend to prefer freestyle, right?
Can you point me to the place in that study that says that women manage their money more effectively than men?
Dan,
I would be curious to see the results of other head-to-head, winner take all contests—tournaments—between the sexes. Does the fact that money is involved make a difference? Or is it enough that competition is on the line?
It is interesting that men don’t get more competitive going up against a woman, but women hold back against the guys. Do women do this it the if the scholarship, grant, argument at trial in court, or the boardroom battle is on the line?
As the father of two daughters, I wonder about the ramifications as they go into the job market.
“What is R-directed thinking?” As per your wisdom in A Whole New Mind, do you see this as a reflection of R-directed thinkers using their more relational ways to make a better or equal decision? It is really interesting that the smaller risks women took in this particular study ended up with the same results as the big risks men took. Perhaps we need to de-gender small steps and conservative risk so that more people feel comfortable doing things that way.
@David — Don’t know the issue very well, but that pattern exists in other realms. That is, men occupy the far ends of the bell curve, while women are less extreme.
@Lance — CHeck out the book I linked to — Warren Buffet Invests Like a Girl — from the folks at Motley Fool. Lots of great research in it to demonstrate this point.
Very interesting! If women/men play using different strategies, it makes sense that the fact that women play different depending on the oponent’s gender could result in a more effective game for them. Thanks for this post!
The fact that women changed their wager in a male dominated competion is interesting. is this behaviour a result of years of female oppression? That they believe that their chances are smaller? When the study (along with common knowledge) shows the opposite. Really sad.
Bigger risk = bigger reward. Perhaps women and men win just as often, but if you bet more, you will win more money. For those who lose on Jeopardy, the prize is zero.
Contestants shouldn’t worry about their opponents on Jeopardy. Just like in golf, you are your own opponent. Two tips:
1. START with the high values, NOT the low values. Then, if you hit a Daily Double you can wage more and win more. Almost every contestant plays this incorrectly, starting with the low values. Since questions are typically all answered, start with those which have a better chance of inflating their value.
2. Optimize winning money, and stop playing against an opponent’s score. Most contestants should be betting 100% of winnings on all Daily Doubles, and in the Final Round (even if they are already an assured winner). This isn’t about winning, it is about maximizing earning.
With the above in mind, males and females should be perform at their best – equally. Contestants may be book smart, but it is shocking how many Jeopardy contestants don’t compete hard in a fashion similar to athletes. Sports teams are always trying to maximize points totals, regardless of the score!
Dan,
I believe that the ability of women to manage money better is the main reason why Muhammad Yunus only lent to women when he started Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. If I remember correctly the reasoning was along the lines that if you lent money to aman he would only go out and buy a new shiny rickshaw, while a woman would invest in something that benefitted the family.
From personal experience I can say that Bangladeshi rickshaws are shiny.
Don’t women have to manage their money more effectively than men, since we still make less and live longer?
I assume you meant “sex,” not gender. Big difference, despite some folks attempt to not understand.