Sex differences in cooperation and prosocial behavior

Brent Simpson; Mark Van Vugt

doi:10.1108/S0882-6145(2009)0000026007

Login

Welcome:
Guest

Search for:

Browse:

Product Information:

Resources:

Advances in Group Processes

ISSN: 0882-6145
Series editor(s): S.R.Thye and Edward Lawler

Subject Area: Sociology and Public Policy

Content: Series Volumes | Current Volume RSS

Options: To add Favourites and Table of Contents Alerts please take a Emerald profile

Document request:
Sex differences in cooperation and prosocial behavior

Document Information:
Title:	Sex differences in cooperation and prosocial behavior
Author(s):	Brent Simpson, Mark Van Vugt
Volume:	26 Editor(s): Shane R. Thye, Edward J. Lawler ISBN: 978-1-84855-572-3 eISBN: 978-1-84855-573-0
Citation:	Brent Simpson, Mark Van Vugt (2009), Sex differences in cooperation and prosocial behavior, in Shane R. Thye, Edward J. Lawler (ed.) Altruism and Prosocial Behavior in Groups (Advances in Group Processes, Volume 26), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.81-103
DOI:	10.1108/S0882-6145(2009)0000026007 (Permanent URL)
Publisher:	Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Article type:	Chapter Item
Abstract:	A long line of research has addressed whether there are sex differences in cooperation and other forms of prosocial behavior. Studies of social dilemmas (situations that pose a conflict between individual and collective interests) have yielded particularly contradictory conclusions about whether males or females are more cooperative. We present an evolutionary framework that synthesizes previous results and generates new insights into the sex and cooperation question. The framework addresses two general bases of sex differences in cooperation. First, we show how variation in the motivational structure of social dilemmas generates sex differences in cooperation. We then address two aspects of social structure, that, according to evolutionary reasoning, generate sex differences in cooperation: the sex composition of the group, and the interpersonal versus intergroup nature of the dilemma. After presenting new hypotheses and reviewing existing research relevant to each hypothesis, we conclude by making suggestions for future research.