# Male-Female_Dynamics_in_Groups_A_Field_Study_of_Th
URL:: https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/39054952
Author:: readwise.io
## Highlights
> Study 1 uses game simulations
> modeled on the television show The Weakest Link to show how male and
> female players trade off individual versus group utility in a group setting
> and how such trade-offs affect group dynamics. They identify four patterns
> of sex-based group dynamics: old boys’ club, queen bee, bounded rationality,
> and females as finalists but not winners. T ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01gv363jwdg3bp181bxq9mwpgw))
> . The authors propose that
> differences in the degree of competition versus cooperation in the group,
> the initial sex composition, and the mean and variance of players’ abilities
> by sex interactively determine which pattern will be noted. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01gv363v4bxd1q18fdbx7pr87b))
> However, females were
> voted out less often (or later) than their performance justified, whereas
> males were voted out more often (or earlier), even when they performed
> well. This led to a pattern they called females as finalists but not winners.
> Valenzuela and Raghubir (2007) conjecture, and present evidence consistent
> with the idea, that males retained lower performing females as they were
> perceived to be easier to defeat in the final. Females, however, retained other
> lower performing females as a higher proportion of females in a group led
> them to perform better. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01gv36dgehhq15pgde1rdvgred))
> When males do not show an in-group
> bias but females derogate or favor other females, the dynamics that result
> are termed queen bee and power girls, respectively. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01gv36g11vgmcgd3kvk6gpx28d))
> Given a
> competitive environment, strategic group dynamics become contingent on
> (a) sex composition, (b) the mean performance differential between males
> and females, and (c) the extent of variance in the performance level within
> each sex, which together determine the need for in-group favoritism or dero-
> gation. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01gv36yeg31mas71aatca7npc2))
### Literature Review
> In-group favoritism is defined as evaluating and rewarding members of
> one’s own sex higher than members of the opposite sex. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01gv377j2r8k8g25eskejk8src))
> Furthermore, minority group members identify more strongly
> with their group and evaluate their group more positively than members of
> the dominant group (Bettencourt, Miller, & Hume, 1999; Jackson, 1997,
> 1999; Otten, Mummendey, & Blanz, 1996). This implies that the lower the pro-
> portion of one’s own sex in the group and the higher the relative performance
> of one’s own sex versus that of the opposite sex, the higher the likelihood of
> in-group favoritism. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01gv37856m94w76w2ft0bk6v89))
> In-group derogation is defined as rewarding members of one’s own sex
> lower than members of the opposite sex, that is, females evaluating other
> females worse than the average male or males evaluating other males worse
> than the average female. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01gv378fgew9f4x9ppz359e36x))
> Sleeper and Nigro (1987) found
> that before beginning work on an experimental task, both male and female
> participants working with female partners expressed higher self-confidence
> than those working with male partners. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01gv37c1tf8a8dwjmr60vdssmq))
> In a similar vein,
> Heilman and Kram (1978) report that both males and females took more credit
> for success when they worked with a female than when they worked with a
> male. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01gv37ccpjd974rf4jd2791801))
> Cognitive gender-based biases may occur at earlier stages of
> a group interaction when identifying group members’ performance levels is
> an effortful task. This pattern is reflected in the cognitive cue-based dynamic:
> bounded rationality. When strategic considerations are low, both sexes may
> also just derogate (termed eat your own) or favor their own sex (termed battle
> of the sexes). ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01gv37x1w33nqdds4c47by2f7z))
> if females derogate other
> females, the queen bee pattern comes into play, where a strong performing
> female member eliminates weaker female participants so that she is the
> only female remaining. We propose that this dynamic is more likely to
> occur the higher the variance in the performance of females. If males dero-
> gate other males, we see the alpha male pattern, where a strong performing
> male member eliminates other males so that he is the strongest male remain-
> ing. This dynamic is more likely to occur the higher the variance in the
> performance of males. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01gv37ypxzak9fwma3d5x7n29w))
> If females favor other females, we see the power girls dynamic, where
> female group members collude to exclude males. This dynamic is more likely
> to occur the higher the relative average performance of females versus males
> and the lower the variance in the performance of females. If males favor
> other males, the old boys’ club dynamic is seen, where male group members
> collude to retain other males in the group. This dynamic is more likely to
> occur the higher the relative average performance of males versus females
> and the lower the variance in the performance of males. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01gv380cvvhwet06he5k8fhcyp))
---
Title: Male-Female_Dynamics_in_Groups_A_Field_Study_of_Th
Author: readwise.io
Tags: readwise, articles
date: 2024-01-30
---
# Male-Female_Dynamics_in_Groups_A_Field_Study_of_Th
URL:: https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/39054952
Author:: readwise.io
## AI-Generated Summary
None
## Highlights
> Study 1 uses game simulations
> modeled on the television show The Weakest Link to show how male and
> female players trade off individual versus group utility in a group setting
> and how such trade-offs affect group dynamics. They identify four patterns
> of sex-based group dynamics: old boys’ club, queen bee, bounded rationality,
> and females as finalists but not winners. T ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01gv363jwdg3bp181bxq9mwpgw))
> . The authors propose that
> differences in the degree of competition versus cooperation in the group,
> the initial sex composition, and the mean and variance of players’ abilities
> by sex interactively determine which pattern will be noted. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01gv363v4bxd1q18fdbx7pr87b))
> However, females were
> voted out less often (or later) than their performance justified, whereas
> males were voted out more often (or earlier), even when they performed
> well. This led to a pattern they called females as finalists but not winners.
> Valenzuela and Raghubir (2007) conjecture, and present evidence consistent
> with the idea, that males retained lower performing females as they were
> perceived to be easier to defeat in the final. Females, however, retained other
> lower performing females as a higher proportion of females in a group led
> them to perform better. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01gv36dgehhq15pgde1rdvgred))
> When males do not show an in-group
> bias but females derogate or favor other females, the dynamics that result
> are termed queen bee and power girls, respectively. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01gv36g11vgmcgd3kvk6gpx28d))
> Given a
> competitive environment, strategic group dynamics become contingent on
> (a) sex composition, (b) the mean performance differential between males
> and females, and (c) the extent of variance in the performance level within
> each sex, which together determine the need for in-group favoritism or dero-
> gation. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01gv36yeg31mas71aatca7npc2))
### Literature Review
> In-group favoritism is defined as evaluating and rewarding members of
> one’s own sex higher than members of the opposite sex. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01gv377j2r8k8g25eskejk8src))
> Furthermore, minority group members identify more strongly
> with their group and evaluate their group more positively than members of
> the dominant group (Bettencourt, Miller, & Hume, 1999; Jackson, 1997,
> 1999; Otten, Mummendey, & Blanz, 1996). This implies that the lower the pro-
> portion of one’s own sex in the group and the higher the relative performance
> of one’s own sex versus that of the opposite sex, the higher the likelihood of
> in-group favoritism. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01gv37856m94w76w2ft0bk6v89))
> In-group derogation is defined as rewarding members of one’s own sex
> lower than members of the opposite sex, that is, females evaluating other
> females worse than the average male or males evaluating other males worse
> than the average female. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01gv378fgew9f4x9ppz359e36x))
> Sleeper and Nigro (1987) found
> that before beginning work on an experimental task, both male and female
> participants working with female partners expressed higher self-confidence
> than those working with male partners. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01gv37c1tf8a8dwjmr60vdssmq))
> In a similar vein,
> Heilman and Kram (1978) report that both males and females took more credit
> for success when they worked with a female than when they worked with a
> male. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01gv37ccpjd974rf4jd2791801))
> Cognitive gender-based biases may occur at earlier stages of
> a group interaction when identifying group members’ performance levels is
> an effortful task. This pattern is reflected in the cognitive cue-based dynamic:
> bounded rationality. When strategic considerations are low, both sexes may
> also just derogate (termed eat your own) or favor their own sex (termed battle
> of the sexes). ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01gv37x1w33nqdds4c47by2f7z))
> if females derogate other
> females, the queen bee pattern comes into play, where a strong performing
> female member eliminates weaker female participants so that she is the
> only female remaining. We propose that this dynamic is more likely to
> occur the higher the variance in the performance of females. If males dero-
> gate other males, we see the alpha male pattern, where a strong performing
> male member eliminates other males so that he is the strongest male remain-
> ing. This dynamic is more likely to occur the higher the variance in the
> performance of males. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01gv37ypxzak9fwma3d5x7n29w))
> If females favor other females, we see the power girls dynamic, where
> female group members collude to exclude males. This dynamic is more likely
> to occur the higher the relative average performance of females versus males
> and the lower the variance in the performance of females. If males favor
> other males, the old boys’ club dynamic is seen, where male group members
> collude to retain other males in the group. This dynamic is more likely to
> occur the higher the relative average performance of males versus females
> and the lower the variance in the performance of males. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01gv380cvvhwet06he5k8fhcyp))