Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality
Open accessAbstract
Assessing gender differences: What contributes to gender-associated differences in preferences such as the willingness to take risks, patience, altruism, positive and negative reciprocity, and trust? Falk and Hermle studied 80,000 individuals in 76 countries who participated in a Global Preference Survey and compared the data with country-level variables such as gross domestic product and indices of gender inequality. They observed that the more that women have equal opportunities, the more they differ from men in their preferences. Science , this issue p. eaas9899
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the causal interpretation of GEP, gender equality or a related variable is held responsible for the magnitude of gender differences across countries.
“The variable to explain is the magnitude of gender differences across countries and the variable responsible is gender equality (or some related variable).”
From Simpson’s gender-equality paradox (2025) · cites this paper as [4]
The Gender Equality section treats the magnitude of cross-country gender differences in preferences as the outcome and reports a significant association with gender equality. The Concluding Remarks suggest a possible explanation involving access to resources, but the paper describes its findings as associations, not evidence that gender equality is causally responsible. Its findings concern preferences specifically, rather than gender differences generally. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredSex differences in personality are more pronounced in countries with higher living conditions.
“We found that sex differences in personality, verbal abilities, episodic memory, and negative emotions are more pronounced in countries with higher living conditions.”
From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Falk & Hermle, 2018
The Concluding Remarks (page not provided) report stronger gender differences in preferences in countries with higher economic development and gender equality. They say this finding *may* relate to other personality traits, but do not establish the claimed pattern for personality traits generally. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThere were reliable sex differences in Personality-general, with Mahalanobis distance = 0.89 to 1.97.
“There were reliable sex differences in Personality-general: The magnitude of the difference was Mahalanobis distance = 0.89 to 1.97”
From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Falk & Hermle, 2018
The Data and Measures section reports significant gender differences in six preferences, supporting the general assertion that some sex differences were reliable. It does not identify a measure called “Personality-general” or report Mahalanobis distances of 0.89 to 1.97; its reported magnitudes are in standard deviations. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMales were higher than females on risk-taking (SMDs = 0.17-0.36).
“risk-taking (SMDs = 0.17–SMD = 0.36)”
From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Falk & Hermle, 2018
The Data and Measures section reports that women were less risk-taking than men by 0.168 standard deviations, supporting the direction and approximately the lower end of the stated range. The passages found do not report a risk-taking gender difference of 0.36 standard deviations, so the upper end is not supported by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAlthough some previous studies have identified other variables as stronger predictors than gender equality, we found no such tendencies, nor did any of the other variables survive controls more systematically, illustrating the consistent cultural/methodological confound across predictors.
“Although some previous studies have identified other variables as stronger predictors than gender equality (4, 37), we found no such tendencies, nor did any of the other variables survive controls more systematically, illustrating the consistent cultural/methodological confound across predictors.”
From Simpson’s gender-equality paradox (2025) · cites this paper as [4]
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Many scholars interpret GEP findings with a causal lens.
“Scholars vary in how they explain such paradoxes, but many interpret the findings with a causal lens (for 1–6), this interpretation is more prevalent in (1, 2, 4, 5); see SI Appendix, section 1.1 for more details): The variable to explain is the magnitude of gender differences across countries and the variable responsible is gender equality (or some related variable).”
From Simpson’s gender-equality paradox (2025) · cites this paper as [4]
The gender-equality paradox refers to the result that places, often operationalized as countries, with more gender equality exhibit larger gender differences on certain measures.
“The gender-equality paradox (GEP) refers to the result that places (often operationalized as countries) with more gender equality exhibit larger gender differences* on certain measures (1–6).”
From Simpson’s gender-equality paradox (2025) · cites this paper as [4]
Females scored higher than males on altruism (SMD = 0.11).
“altruism (SMD = 0.11)”
From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Falk & Hermle, 2018
Males were higher than females on patience (SMD = 0.05).
“patience (SMD = 0.05)”
From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Falk & Hermle, 2018
The prime evidence for the GEP is based on correlations across countries.
“The prime evidence for the GEP is based on correlations across countries (1–6, 32).”
From Simpson’s gender-equality paradox (2025) · cites this paper as [4]
Males were higher than females on negative reciprocity (SMD = 0.13).
“Males, on the other hand, were higher on negative reciprocity (SMD = 0.13)”
From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Falk & Hermle, 2018
Two studies in the old analyses that investigated the relationship between living conditions and six personality dimensions indicated that regardless of the direction of the sex difference, they are more prominent in countries with higher living conditions.
“The two studies in the old analyses (Falk & Hermle, 2018; Lippa, 2008) that investigated the relationship between living conditions and six personality dimensions (altruism, positive reciprocity, trust, negative reciprocity, patience, risk-taking) also indicated that regardless of the direction of the sex difference, they are more prominent in countries with higher living conditions.”
From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Falk & Hermle, 2018
Females scored higher than males on trust (SMD = 0.06).
“trust (SMD = 0.06)”
From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Falk & Hermle, 2018
Females scored higher than males on positive reciprocity (SMD = 0.06).
“positive reciprocity (SMD = 0.06)”
From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Falk & Hermle, 2018
Gender equality, like gender differences, is multidimensional, and GEP-studies tend to measure equality and differences along different dimensions, which should weaken relationships between variables.
“A further potential issue in GEP-studies is that gender equality, like gender differences, is multidimensional, and that GEP-studies tend to measure equality and differences along different dimensions (see (1–6))—which should weaken relationships between variables.”
From Simpson’s gender-equality paradox (2025) · cites this paper as [4]
The resource hypothesis is supported by results from the old analyses and, more importantly, by results from the new analyses.
“This hypothesis is supported by results from the old analyses (Costa et al., 2001; Falk & Hermle, 2018; Giolla & Kajonius, 2019; Kaiser, 2019) and, more importantly, by results from the new analyses (Grijalva et al., 2015; Miller et al., 2008; Randler & Engelke, 2019; Yang & Girgus, 2019).”
From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Falk & Hermle, 2018
Females scored higher than males on extraversion (SMD = 0.15).
“extraversion (SMD = 0.15)”
From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Falk & Hermle, 2018
The Data and Measures and Preference measures sections (page not provided) report gender differences in six economic preferences, not extraversion. Searches for extraversion, personality traits, and an SMD of 0.15 found no passage supporting the claimed comparison. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredFemales scored higher than males on forgiveness (SMD = 0.28).
“forgiveness (SMD = 0.28)”
From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Falk & Hermle, 2018
The Data and Measures section reports gender differences for six preferences, but not forgiveness. Searches for “forgiveness” and “0.28 standard deviations” found no passage reporting the claimed forgiveness score, so our copy cannot verify the attributed result. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredFemales scored higher than males on morningness (SMD = 0.08).
“morningness (SMD = 0.08)”
From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Falk & Hermle, 2018
The Data and Measures and Preference measures sections report gender differences in altruism, trust, reciprocity, risk taking, and patience, but not morningness. Searches for “morningness SMD = 0.08” and for chronotype or sleep preferences found no passage addressing the claimed difference. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredFemales scored higher than males on effortful control (SMD = 0.12).
“effortful control (SMD = 0.12)”
From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Falk & Hermle, 2018
The Data and Measures section reports gender differences in six economic preferences, including altruism, trust, risk taking, and patience, but does not report effortful control. Searches for “effortful control,” “SMD = 0.12,” and “standardized mean difference 0.12” found no passage supporting the attributed result. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredFemales scored higher than males on agreeableness (SMD = 0.56).
“females scored higher on agreeableness (SMD = 0.56)”
From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Falk & Hermle, 2018
The Data and Measures section reports gender differences in six preferences, not agreeableness. The Gender Equality section gives 0.56 as a correlation between an index of preference differences and the Gender Equality Index, not a standardized mean difference. Searches for agreeableness and the claimed SMD found no passage addressing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredFemales scored higher than males on sociotropy (SMD = 0.34).
“sociotropy (SMD = 0.34”
From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Falk & Hermle, 2018
The Data and Measures and Preference Measures sections report gender differences in altruism, trust, reciprocity, risk taking, and patience, but not sociotropy. Searches for sociotropy and the claimed 0.34 standardized mean difference found no supporting passage; the 0.34 in Gender Equality is a correlation for risk taking, not a sociotropy score difference. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredFloor-effects were a significant problem with certain items in ref. 4.
“In addition, floor-effects are assessed in (4), where it was a significant problem with certain items (SI Appendix, section 2.5).”
From Simpson’s gender-equality paradox (2025) · cites this paper as [4]
The Pretest section describes wording and comprehension problems with certain survey items, but not floor effects. Searches for “floor effects,” minimum-value responses, and response distributions found no passage in our copy assessing whether floor effects were a significant problem. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMales were higher than females on narcissism (SMD = 0.27).
“narcissism (SMD = 0.27)”
From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Falk & Hermle, 2018
The Overview and infrastructure and Data and Measures sections describe gender differences in six preferences, including altruism and risk taking, but do not address narcissism. Searches for “narcissism” and a male–female standardized mean difference of 0.27 found no passage supporting the attributed result. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredFemales scored higher than males on neuroticism (SMD = 0.41).
“neuroticism (SMD = 0.41)”
From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Falk & Hermle, 2018
The Data and Measures and Preference measures sections report gender differences in six economic preferences, not neuroticism. Searches for neuroticism, Big Five traits, and the claimed 0.41 standardized mean difference found no passage in our copy reporting this result; the 0.41 in Gender Equality is a correlation for trust. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMales were higher than females on general impulsivity (SMD = 0.09).
“general impulsivity (SMD = 0.09”
From A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox (2025) · cites this paper as Falk & Hermle, 2018
The Data and Measures section reports gender differences in risk taking and patience, but does not report a measure of general impulsivity or an SMD of 0.09 for it. Searches for “general impulsivity,” “impulsive,” and “0.09” found no passage in our copy establishing the claimed result. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Gender Differences in Preferences
Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.47.2.448 · Cited by 5,694 · see citing works
Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995) · Games and Economic Behavior · doi:10.1006/game.1995.1027 · Cited by 5,548 · see citing works
An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining
Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. (1982) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/0167-2681(82)90011-7 · Cited by 4,753 · see citing works
Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development
McLoyd, V. C. (1998) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.53.2.185 · Cited by 3,763 · see citing works
The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics
Inglehart, R. (2015) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9781400869589 · Cited by 3,714 · see citing works
Alesina, A., Devleeschauwer, A., Easterly, W., Kurlat, S., & Wacziarg, R. (2003) · Journal of Economic Growth · doi:10.1023/a:1024471506938 · Cited by 3,432 · see citing works
Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings.
Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322 · Cited by 2,986 · see citing works
Women Empowerment and Economic Development
Duflo, E. (2012) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.50.4.1051 · Cited by 2,978 · see citing works
Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2003) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511550362 · Cited by 2,177 · see citing works
Global Evidence on Economic Preferences*
Falk, A., Becker, A., Dohmen, T., Enke, B., Huffman, D., & Sunde, U. (2018) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjy013 · Cited by 1,724 · see citing works
Self-citationHaushofer, J., & Fehr, E. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1232491 · Cited by 1,638 · see citing works
The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles.
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.54.6.408 · Cited by 1,499 · see citing works
Rising tide: gender equality and cultural change around the world
(2004) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.41-3062 · Cited by 1,488 · see citing works
Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.168 · Cited by 1,391 · see citing works
The Psychology of Sex Differences: —Vol. I: Text
Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974) · doi:10.1515/9781503620780 · Cited by 1,368 · see citing works
Culture: An Empirical Investigation of Beliefs, Work, and Fertility
Fernández, R., & Fogli, A. (2009) · American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics · doi:10.1257/mac.1.1.146 · Cited by 1,264 · see citing works
Sex differences in value priorities: Cross-cultural and multimethod studies.
Schwartz, S. H., & Rubel‐Lifschitz, T. (2005) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.1010 · Cited by 1,160 · see citing works
The Origins of Sex Differences in Human Behavior: Evolved Dispositions versus Social Roles
(2003) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/2874.003.0015 · Cited by 1,080 · see citing works
Mothers and Sons: Preference Formation and Female Labor Force Dynamics
Fernández, R., Fogli, A., & Olivetti, C. (2004) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/0033553042476224 · Cited by 1,063 · see citing works
Risk and Time Preferences: Linking Experimental and Household Survey Data from Vietnam
Tanaka, T., Camerer, C. F., & Nguyen, Q. (2010) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.100.1.557 · Cited by 1,016 · see citing works
Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences.
Geary, D. C. (1998) · American Psychological Association eBooks · doi:10.1037/10370-000 · Cited by 978 · see citing works
Gender Differences in Competition: Evidence\\ From a Matrilineal and a Patriarchal Society
Uri Gneezy, B., Leonard, K. L., List, J. A., & List, A. (2009) · Econometrica · doi:10.3982/ecta6690 · Cited by 930 · see citing works
The “Out of Africa” Hypothesis, Human Genetic Diversity, and Comparative Economic Development
Ashraf, Q. H., & Galor, O. (2013) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.103.1.1 · Cited by 928 · see citing works
Gender, Competitiveness, and Career Choices *
Buser, T., Niederle, M., & Oosterbeek, H. (2014) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qju009 · Cited by 816 · see citing works
Geography and macroeconomics: New data and new findings
Nordhaus, W. D. (2006) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0509842103 · Cited by 816 · see citing works
Risk and Time Preferences: Linking Experimental and Household Survey Data from Vietnam
Tanaka, T., Camerer, C. F., & Nguyen, Q. (2016) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-4-431-55402-8_1 · Cited by 742 · see citing works
Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual selection.
Buss, D. M. (1995) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.50.3.164 · Cited by 573 · see citing works
The Origins of Ethnolinguistic Diversity
Michalopoulos, S. (2012) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.102.4.1508 · Cited by 551 · see citing works
Genetic Variation in Preferences for Giving and Risk Taking *
Cesarini, D. A., Dawes, C. T., Johannesson, M., Lichtenstein, P., & Wallace, B. (2009) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/qjec.2009.124.2.809 · Cited by 460 · see citing works
Driving forces behind informal sanctions
Falk, A., Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2005) · Econometrica · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00644.x · Cited by 451 · see citing works
Self-citationSocial comparison, self-stereotyping, and gender differences in self-construals.
Guimond, S., Chatard, A., Martinot, D., Crisp, R. J., & Redersdorff, S. (2006) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.2.221 · Cited by 381 · see citing works
Heritability of cooperative behavior in the trust game
Cesarini, D., Dawes, C. T., Fowler, J. H., Johannesson, M., Lichtenstein, P., & Wallace, B. (2008) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0710069105 · Cited by 371 · see citing works
Yuki, M. (2003) · Social Psychology Quarterly · doi:10.2307/1519846 · Cited by 344 · see citing works
Culture, gender, and the self: Variations and impact of social comparison processes.
Guimond, S., Branscombe, N. R., Brunot, S., Buunk, A. P., Chatard, A., Désert, M., Garcia, D. M., Haque, S., Martinot, D., & Yzerbyt, V. (2007) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1118 · Cited by 341 · see citing works
Women's Liberation: What's in It for Men? <sup>*</sup>
Doepke, M., & Tertilt, M. (2009) · Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/qjec.2009.124.4.1541 · Cited by 327 · see citing works
Heritability of ultimatum game responder behavior
Wallace, B., Cesarini, D. A., Lichtenstein, P., & Johannesson, M. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0706642104 · Cited by 210 · see citing works
A randomized trial of the effect of estrogen and testosterone on economic behavior
Zethraeus, N., Kočoska-Maraš, L., Ellingsen, T., von Schoultz, B., Hirschberg, A. L., & Johannesson, M. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0812757106 · Cited by 202 · see citing works
Falk, A., Becker, A., Dohmen, T., Huffman, D., & Sunde, U. (2016) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2725035 · Cited by 195 · see citing works
Self-citationWillingness to Compete: Family Matters
Almås, I., Cappelen, A. W., Salvanes, K. G., Sørensen, E. Ø., & Tungodden, B. (2015) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2015.2244 · Cited by 171 · see citing works
Worker Sorting and the Risk of Death on the Job
DeLeire, T., & Levy, H. G. (2004) · Journal of Labor Economics · doi:10.1086/423159 · Cited by 162 · see citing works
Risk and Time Preferences: Experimental and Household Survey Data from VietnamPreprint
Tanaka, T., Camerer, C. F., & Nguyen, Q. (2006) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.877229 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Evolution and Developmental Sex Differences
Geary, D. C. (1999) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00027 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Psychological Similarities and Differences between Women and Men across Cultures
Guimond, S. (2007) · Social and Personality Psychology Compass · doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00036.x · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [3]3. E. E. Maccoby, C. N. Jacklin, The psychology of sex differences (Stanford University Press, 1974).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gender stereotypes can explain the gender-equality paradox
Breda, T., Jouini, E., Napp, C., & Thebault, G. (2020) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2008704117 · Cited by 233 · see citing works
Psychology as a Historical Science
Muthukrishna, M., Henrich, J., & Slingerland, E. (2020) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-082820-111436 · Cited by 218 · see citing works
Women and Global South strikingly underrepresented among top‐publishing ecologists
Maas, B., Pakeman, R. J., Godet, L., Smith, L. C., Devictor, V., & Primack, R. B. (2021) · Conservation Letters · doi:10.1111/conl.12797 · Cited by 196 · see citing works
Gender Inclusion and Fit in STEM
Schmader, T. (2022) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-032720-043052 · Cited by 183 · see citing works
Chen, S., Doerr, S., Frost, J., Gambacorta, L., & Shin, H. S. (2023) · Journal of Financial Intermediation · doi:10.1016/j.jfi.2023.101026 · Cited by 175 · see citing works
Gender stereotypes are reflected in the distributional structure of 25 languages
Lewis, M. L., & Lupyan, G. (2020) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-020-0918-6 · Cited by 145 · see citing works
Sex differences in moral judgements across 67 countries
Atari, M., Lai, M. H. C., & Dehghani, M. (2020) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2020.1201 · Cited by 145 · see citing works
Country‐level correlates of the Dark Triad traits in 49 countries
Jonason, P. K., Żemojtel-Piotrowska, M. A., Piotrowski, J. P., Sedikides, C., Campbell, W. K., Gebauer, J. E., Maltby, J., Adamovic, M., Adams, B. G., Kadiyono, A. L., et al. (2020) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/jopy.12569 · Cited by 134 · see citing works
Drivers of Gendered Sectoral and Occupational Segregation in Developing Countries
Borrowman, M., & Klasen, S. (2019) · Feminist Economics · doi:10.1080/13545701.2019.1649708 · Cited by 129 · see citing works
Do Multinationals Transfer Culture? Evidence on Female Employment in China
Tang, H., & Zhang, Y. (2017) · Journal of International Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jinteco.2021.103518 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
Men, women and STEM: Why the differences and what should be done?
Stewart-Williams, S., & Halsey, L. G. (2021) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1177/0890207020962326 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
Greenberg, D. M., Warrier, V., Abu-Akel, A. M., Allison, C. L., Gajos, K. Z., Reinecke, K., Rentfrow, P. J., Radecki, M. A., & Baron‐Cohen, S. (2022) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2022385119 · Cited by 114 · see citing works
Smallholder farmers’ knowledge and willingness to pay for insect-based feeds in Kenya
Chia, S. Y., Macharia, J. N., Diiro, G., Kassie, M. B., Ekesi, S., van Loon, J. J. A., Dicke, M., & Tanga, C. M. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0230552 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
The stereotype that girls lack talent: A worldwide investigation
Napp, C., & Breda, T. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abm3689 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Sex differences in HEXACO personality characteristics across countries and ethnicities
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2020) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/jopy.12551 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
The globalizability of temporal discounting
Ruggeri, K., Panin, A., Vdovic, M., Većkalov, B., abdul-Salaam, N., Achterberg, J., Akil, C., Amatya, J., Amatya, K., Andersen, T. L., et al. (2021) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-022-01392-w · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Gender inequality: determinants and outcomes in Nigeria
Adeosun, O. T., & Owolabi, K. E. (2021) · Journal of Business and Socio-economic Development · doi:10.1108/jbsed-01-2021-0007 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Gender Differences in Job Search and the Earnings Gap: Evidence from the Field and Lab
Patricia Cortés, Y., Pan, J., Pilossoph, L., Reuben, E., & Zafar, B. (2023) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjad017 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Froehlich, L., Olsson, M. I. T., Dorrough, A. R., & Martiny, S. E. (2020) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/josi.12390 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
I'd blush if I could: closing gender divides in digital skills through education
UNESCO, & Coalition, E. S. (2019) · doi:10.54675/rapc9356 · Cited by 262 · see citing works
From ‘MeToo’ to Boko Haram: A survey of levels and trends of gender inequality in the world
Klasen, S. (2020) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104862 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Richardson, S. S., Reiches, M. W., Bruch, J. D., Boulicault, M., Noll, N. E., & Shattuck‐Heidorn, H. (2020) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797619872762 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Robson, J., & Peetz, J. (2020) · Journal of Consumer Affairs · doi:10.1111/joca.12304 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Gender and firm performance around the world: The roles of finance, technology and labor
Lee, A., Liu, Y., Murtinu, S., & Wei, Z. (2022) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113322 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Fors Connolly, F., Goossen, M., & Hjerm, M. (2020) · Sex Roles · doi:10.1007/s11199-019-01097-x · Cited by 65 · see citing works
When do we observe a gender gap in competition entry? A meta-analysis of the experimental literature
Markowsky, E., & Beblo, M. (2022) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2022.03.030 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Prosociality predicts labor market success around the world
Kosse, F., & Tincani, M. M. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-19007-1 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
A Systematic Review and New Analyses of the Gender-Equality Paradox
Herlitz, A., Hönig, I., Hedebrant, K., & Asperholm, M. (2025) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916231202685 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
“Sixteen studies investigated sex differences in Personal characteristics: eight in the old analyses (Bleidorn et al., 2016; Costa et al., 2001; Falk & Hermle, 2018; Giolla & Kajonius, 2019; Kaiser, 2019; Lippa, 2008; Schmitt et al., 2008; Zuckerman et al., 2016) and eight in the new analyses (Cross…”
InfluentialParadoxical gender effects in meat consumption across cultures
Hopwood, C. J., Zizer, J. N., Nissen, A. T., Dillard, C., Thompkins, A. M., Graça, J., Waldhorn, D. R., & Bleidorn, W. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-62511-3 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Gendered Self-Views Across 62 Countries: A Test of Competing Models
Kosakowska‐Berezecka, N., Bosson, J. K., Jurek, P., Besta, T., Olech, M., Vandello, J. A., Bender, M., Dandy, J., Hoorens, V., Jasinskaja‐Lahti, I., et al. (2022) · Social Psychological and Personality Science · doi:10.1177/19485506221129687 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Pandemic Leadership: Sex Differences and Their Evolutionary–Developmental Origins
Luoto, S., & Varella, M. A. C. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.633862 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
The Cultural Sources of the Gender Gap in Voter Turnout
Dassonneville, R. C., & Kostelka, F. (2020) · British Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s0007123419000644 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Using survey questions to measure preferences: Lessons from an experimental validation in Kenya
Bauer, M., Chytilová, J., & Miguel, E. A. (2020) · European Economic Review · doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2020.103493 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Borgonovi, F., & Han, S. W. (2020) · Journal of Adolescence · doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.11.009 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Female leadership and bank performance in Latin America
Baselga-Pascual, L., & Vähämaa, E. (2021) · Emerging Markets Review · doi:10.1016/j.ememar.2021.100807 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
An Evolutionary Explanation for the Female Leadership Paradox
Smith, J. E., Rueden, C. R. V., van Vugt, M., Fichtel, C., & Kappeler, P. M. (2021) · Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.3389/fevo.2021.676805 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Balducci, M. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1105234 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Otterbring, T., & Festila, A. (2021) · Journal of Safety Science and Resilience · doi:10.1016/j.jnlssr.2021.11.003 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
A Cultural Psychological Model of Cross-National Variation in Gender Gaps in STEM Participation
Yalçınkaya, N. S., & Adams, G. (2020) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868320947005 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Girón, A., & Kazemikhasragh, A. (2021) · Journal of the Knowledge Economy · doi:10.1007/s13132-021-00782-1 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Things versus People: Gender Differences in Vocational Interests and in Occupational Preferences
Kühn, A., & Wolter, S. C. (2022) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2022.09.003 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Gender preference gaps and voting for redistribution
Ranehill, E., & Weber, R. A. (2022) · Experimental Economics · doi:10.1007/s10683-021-09741-8 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Guo, J., Marsh, H. W., Parker, P. D., & Hu, X. (2024) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-024-09872-3 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Shrestha, B., Bajracharya, S. B., Keitsch, M. M., & Tiwari, S. R. (2020) · Sustainable Development · doi:10.1002/sd.2055 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Exploring and expanding the spaces between research and implementation in conservation science
Maas, B., Toomey, A., & Loyola, R. A. (2019) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108290 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Men are less religious in more gender-equal countries
Moon, J. W., Tratner, A. E., & McDonald, M. M. (2022) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2021.2474 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Gender, Social Value Orientation, and Tax Compliance
D’Attoma, J. W., Volintiru, C., & Malézieux, A. (2018) · CESifo Economic Studies · doi:10.1093/cesifo/ifz016 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Patnaik, A., Venator, J., Wiswall, M., & Zafar, B. (2020) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.04.050 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
A replication of “Representative bureaucracy and the willingness to coproduce”
Sievert, M. (2021) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/padm.12743 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Political Ideology, Cooperation, and National Parochialism Across 42 Nations
Romano, A., Sutter, M., Liu, J. H.-F., & Balliet, D. P. (2020) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2020.0146 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Cancer‐specific survival after diagnosis in men versus women: A pan‐cancer analysis
He, Y., Su, Y., Zeng, J., Chong, W., Hu, X., Zhang, Y., & Peng, X. (2022) · MedComm · doi:10.1002/mco2.145 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Gender differences in cooperation across 20 societies: a meta-analysis
Spadaro, G., Jin, S., & Balliet, D. P. (2022) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2021.0438 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
The gender gap in the acceptance of automated vehicles in Europe
Torrão, G., Lehtonen, E., & Innamaa, S. (2024) · Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.trf.2023.11.002 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Macroeconomic Conditions When Young Shape Job Preferences for Life
Cotofan, M., Cassar, L., Dur, R. A. J., & Meier, S. (2021) · The Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1162/rest_a_01057 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Guo, J., Basarkod, G., Perales, F., Parker, P. D., Marsh, H. W., Donald, J. N., Dicke, T., Sahdra, B. K., Ciarrochi, J., Hu, X., et al. (2022) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/01461672221125619 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
The Relationship Between Trust and Well-Being: A Meta-Analysis
Zhao, M., Li, Y., Lin, J., Fang, Y., Yang, Y., Li, B., & Dong, Y. H. (2024) · Journal of Happiness Studies · doi:10.1007/s10902-024-00737-8 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Argaw, T. L., Phimister, E., & Roberts, D. (2020) · Journal of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1111/1477-9552.12404 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Patnaik, A., Venator, J., Wiswall, M., & Zafar, B. (2020) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w26785 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Converging evidence for greater male variability in time, risk, and social preferences
Thöni, C., & Volk, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2026112118 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Gender, culture and STEM: Counter-intuitive patterns in Arab society
Friedman-Sokuler, N., & Justman, M. (2019) · Economics of Education Review · doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2019.101947 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Gender Differences in Preferences for Meaning at Work
Burbano, V., Padilla, N., & Meier, S. (2024) · American Economic Journal Economic Policy · doi:10.1257/pol.20220121 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Otterbach, S., Sousa‐Poza, A., & Zhang, X. (2021) · Business Ethics the Environment & Responsibility · doi:10.1111/beer.12338 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Borgonovi, F., & Greiff, S. (2020) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2019.101422 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Gender Differences in the Intention to Start a Business
Steinmetz, H., Isidor, R., & Bauer, C. (2021) · Zeitschrift für Psychologie · doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000435 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
COVID-19 Crisis Fuels Hostility against ForeignersPreprint
Bartoš, V., Bauer, M., Cahlíková, J., & Chytilová, J. (2020) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3593411 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Communities and Testing for COVID-19
Stillman, S., & Tonin, M. (2021) · The European Journal of Health Economics · doi:10.1007/s10198-021-01385-y · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Otterbring, T., Bhatnagar, R., Samuelsson, P., & Borau, S. (2021) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102738 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
The Gender-Equality Paradox in Intraindividual Academic Strengths: A Cross-Temporal Analysis
Balducci, M., Larose, M., Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2024) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/09567976241271330 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Sex-specific academic ability and attitude patterns in students across developed countries
Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2020) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2020.101453 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2020) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797620904134 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Social biases in word embeddings and their relation to human cognitionPreprint
Caliskan, A., & Lewis, M. L. (2020) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/d84kg · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Gender and climate change views in context: a cross-national multilevel analysis
Knight, K. W., & Givens, J. E. (2021) · The Social Science Journal · doi:10.1080/03623319.2021.1913041 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
de Boer, J., & Aiking, H. (2022) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2022.106350 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Queen’s Gambit Declined: The Gender-Equality Paradox in Chess Participation Across 160 Countries
Vishkin, A. (2022) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/09567976211034806 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Eriksson, K., & Strimling, P. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1131837 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Napp, C. (2023) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad355 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Borgonovi, F., Ferrara, A., & Piacentini, M. (2023) · Social Science Research · doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2023.102874 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Investor Preference for Director Characteristics: Portfolio Choice with Gender Bias
Friedman, H. L. (2019) · The Accounting Review · doi:10.2308/accr-52621 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Mogilski, J. K. (2020) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781529739442.n8 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Exploring Public Sentiment During COVID-19: A Cross Country Analysis
Yu, S., He, S., Cai, Z., Lee, I., Naseriparsa, M., & Xia, F. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems · doi:10.1109/tcss.2022.3146633 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Religion and cooperation across the globe
Caicedo, F. V., Dohmen, T., & Pondorfer, A. (2023) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2023.09.025 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Focal random selection closes the gender gap in competitiveness
Berger, J. L., Osterloh, M., & Rost, K. (2020) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abb2142 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Option to cooperate increases women's competitiveness and closes the gender gap
Cassar, A., & Rigdon, M. (2021) · Evolution and human behavior · doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2021.06.001 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Are Gender Differences in Vocational Interests Universal?: Moderating Effects of Cultural Dimensions
Tao, C., Glösenberg, A., Tracey, T. J. G., Blustein, D. L., & Thompson, L. F. (2022) · Sex Roles · doi:10.1007/s11199-022-01318-w · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Life-Course Trajectories of Risk-Taking Propensity: A Coordinated Analysis of Longitudinal Studies
Liu, Y., Bagaïni, A., Son, G., Kapoor, M., & Mata, R. (2022) · The Journals of Gerontology Series B · doi:10.1093/geronb/gbac175 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
The gender leadership gap: insights from experiments
Eckel, C. C., Gangadharan, L., Grossman, P. J., & Xue, N. (2021) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781789909852.00014 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Cassar, A., & Zhang, Y. J. (2022) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2022.02.010 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Anderson, S. (2022) · Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économique · doi:10.1111/caje.12628 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Gender gaps in Mathematics and Language: The bias of competitive achievement tests
Arias, O., Canals, C., Mizala, A., & Meneses, F. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0283384 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Simpson’s gender-equality paradox
Berggren, M., & Bergh, R. (2025) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2422247122 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
The hers and his of prosociality across 10 countries
Olsson, M. I. T., Froehlich, L., Dorrough, A. R., & Martiny, S. E. (2021) · British Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjso.12454 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Gender and Earnings Conference CallsPreprint
Francis, B. B., Shohfi, T., & Xin, D. (2020) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3473266 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Cross-border M&A, gender-equal culture, and board gender diversity
Bao, Y., & Li, J. (2023) · Journal of Corporate Finance · doi:10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2023.102527 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Who can I count on: Honor, self-reliance, and family in the United States and Iran
Wang, P. C., Atari, M., & Oyserman, D. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0306460 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Sex Differences in Self-Construal and in Depressive Symptoms: Predictors of Cross-National Variation
Smith, P. B., Easterbrook, M. J., al-Selim, H., Lun, V. M., Koç, Y., Gül, P., Papastylianou, D., Grigoryan, L. K., Torres, C. V., Efremova, M., et al. (2020) · Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology · doi:10.1177/0022022120939655 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Čavojová, V., Adamus, M., & Mikušková, E. B. (2022) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-022-03003-3 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Sex differences and occupational choice Theorizing for policy informed by behavioral science✰
Stern, C., & Madison, G. (2022) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2022.08.032 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Deconstructing the gender-equality paradox.
Ilmarinen, V., & Lönnqvist, J. (2024) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspp0000508 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Lu, C. (2022) · Asia Pacific Viewpoint · doi:10.1111/apv.12349 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Is the math gender gap associated with gender equality? Only in low-income countries
Anghel, B., Rodríguez‐Planas, N., & Sanz‐de‐Galdeano, A. (2020) · Economics of Education Review · doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2020.102064 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
- Authors
- Falk, A., & Hermle, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Bonn (DE)
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Corresponding author
- Falk, Armin
- Hermle, Johannes
- Venue
- Science
- Published
- 2018-10-19
- Volume
- 362
- Issue
- 6412
- ISSN
- 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-9203
- OpenAlex
- W2897197931
- Semantic Scholar
- 0d2fc25ba13490fb427ef5944c020e2de93d3583
- Cited by
- 378
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 42 · 2025: 61 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3
- FWCI
- 56.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- docs.iza.org
- Locations
- Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Econstor (Econstor) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- European Research Council (209214)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Keywords
- gender differences in preferences, time preference, risk preferences, altruism, reciprocity, trust, patience, economic development, gender equality, cross-national comparison, social preferences
- MeSH terms
- Female, Humans, Male, Sex Factors, Social Desirability, Economic Development, Economics, Behavioral
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
