Gender Differences in Decision Making Processes: A Computerized Experiment.

Eduardo Missri Honors Seminar

02/11/08

1

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the differences between men and women in

foreign policy decision making. The study focuses on the differences in biases in decision

making, the differences between satisficing and maximizing approaches by both genders,

the differences between strategy selection, and the difference between holistic and non-

holistic decision making by both genders. The findings demonstrate, that both men and

women have similarities and differences in various aspects of the decision making

process. The importance of these findings is also discussed in this paper.

2

Introduction

Women and men have always had vast differences between themselves in many aspects.

The physical aspect is the most noticeable one, where we can clearly see the differences

between both sexes. In the modern world, gender equality is growing and people tend to

see men and women as equal. This has created an erroneous perception that women and

men are the same. As equality between the sexes has had an important advancement in

human kind itself, clear differences between men and women have created the

perception, that males and females are the same and most importantly think the same.

Various studies (Schubert, Conner, Hoag, and Goldstein et al.) have shown contradicting

evidence when trying to prove the differences amongst genders. Some psychological

studies contradict neurological research and vice versa. In this paper I will attempt to

discover differences and/or similarities between genders in decision making processes in

order to further examine if these differences may affect practical situations and the role

that gender plays in such processes.

Decision making theories such as rational choice are utilized in order to explain how

humans make decisions and they also explain the process by which people go through in

order to reach certain decisions. Women and men however, are different from one

another, thus, one can only assume that the process by which decisions are taken could

possibly vary between the sexes. Decision making and foreign policy have long been the

basis by which governments survive, succeed or fail in global affairs. Politics (as well as

other areas of study), have for long secluded women from participating actively in the

decision making processes of the nation-state affairs. Even though women have been

3

more equal to men than ever before, their active participation in decision making is

generally low in most countries of the world.

In this paper, I will present and compare, the findings of two experiments conducted with

Decision Board Computerized Process Tracing. The goal of this paper is to test the

different neurological, psychological, sociological, and economical studies in a foreign

policy social science experiment. The aim is to try to determine if there are any real

differences between men and women in decision making processes. The experiments

focus on comparing the ability to maximize choices, the differences in biases of decision

between both sexes, differences in the process of decision strategies and task complexity

(alternative or dimension based), and a comparison in holistic approaches between both

genders. With Decision Board computerized process tracing, it is possible to trace the

process and pattern of decision making of subjects conducting these experiments and thus

check for differences among genders.

Theory

Multidisciplinary dilemma

Distinctions between men and women have been found in many areas of study. There

have been wide discussions on the subject on whether men and woman are in fact more

different or more similar to each other. Many neurological, psychological, economical

and sociological experiments have demonstrated clear differences between men and

women, while other studies of the same nature have found no differences and more

similarities.

4

Schubert, Brown, Gysler, and Brachinger found that women are not really more risk-

averse than men while conducting financial decisions. (Schubert, Brown, Gysler,

Brachinger 1999). It is usually a stereotype to believe that women are less risk-averse

than man thus the reason for women being discriminated against while looking for

financial jobs equal to those of men. Under controlled economic conditions, it was found

that more or less risky decisions were not related to gender issues, but rather to the

decision frame itself. (Schubert, Brown, Gysler, Brachinger 1999)

An important study in the field of psychology and neurology, (Conner 1999) has

established that women have four times as many brain cells (neurons) connecting the

right side hemisphere to the left side hemisphere of the brain. (Conner 1999) Women

have the ability to utilize both hemispheres simultaneously in an easier way than men,

“Women can focus on more than one problem at one time and frequently prefer to solve

problems through multiple activities at a time. Nearly every parent has observed how

young girls find the conversations of young boys "boring". Young boys express

confusion and would rather play sports than participate actively in a conversation

between 5 girls who are discussing as many as three subjects at once!” (Conner 1999).

Furthermore recent neurological research conducted by Hannah Hoag shows that men

and women have different brain structure and functioning. “Research is revealing that

male and female brains are built from markedly different genetic blueprints, which create

numerous anatomical differences. There are also differences in the circuitry that wires

5

them up and the chemicals that transmit messages between neurons. All this is pointing

towards the conclusion that there is not just one kind of human brain, but two.” (Hoag

2008) The relative sizes of many of the structures inside female brains are different from

those of males. “For a start, the relative sizes of many of the structures inside female

brains are different from those of males. In a 2001 study, Jill Goldstein of Harvard

Medical School and colleagues measured and compared 45 brain regions in healthy men

and women. They found that parts of the frontal lobe, which houses decision-making and

problem-solving functions, were proportionally larger in women, as was the limbic

cortex, which regulates emotions.” (Hoag 2008)

Maximizing versus Satisficing

Rational choice theory has long been utilized to explain the way humans make decisions.

By having several alternatives, the decision maker would analyze all options and would

choose the alternative that better maximizes output. In other words, the process of

decision making by which the rational actor goes through is a one step process of

screening all the options and deciding for the one that will produce the maximizing result.

However, it has been shown that rational actor model is not the way all human beings

make decisions all the time. Many economic models have for years assumed that humans

are hyperrational and would never make a “non-rational” choice. This idea has been

disproved many times and especially by the work of Herbert Simon, who claims that

humans do not always make the choices that best maximize output but rather have many

constraints that would make them choose a satisficing result. (Simon Herbert 1957). He

suggests that in order to make decisions, the use of heuristics is more common. This

6

obeys to the level of complexity of a particular situation and the inability to compute and

process the expected utility of every alternative action. (Simon Herbert 1957). Ariel

Rubinstein also shows us in his research how the traditional rational actor model is not

necessarily the way we all take decisions, “Decision makers are not equally capable of

analyzing a situation even when the information available to all of them is the same. The

differences in their economic success can be attributed to these differences” (Ariel

Rubinstein 1998) Bounded rationality claims that because of strains on peoples thinking

or willing to analyze, or because of the complexity on certain decisions, maximizing

output is not always possible and thus a satisficing outcome may be enough to take

certain decisions.

Biases

Biases have for long altered the way humans make decisions. Certain biases due to

different factors may change the way people process their decision making. In other

words, certain assumptions and perceptions of a situation may affect the decision making

process because such biases creates the phenomenon where people will not even consider

analyzing certain alternatives and thus make a choice based on these biases. Many

scholars have identified various biases in decision making that can alter the course of the

final choice and thus the outcome. As Mintz and Redd demonstrated "biases in decision

making influence both the process of decision making and the ultimate choice" (Mintz

and Redd 2007). Moreover, Marcus and Zanjok identify three types of biases: input

biases, output biases and operational biases. Input biases occur when it is assumed

erroneously that a particular dimension has more weight than any other. Output biases

7

show a tendency to respond positively rather than negatively. Operational biases often

occur when we tend to think of an unexpected outcome in terms of past occurrences that

might have been similar to what had happened at that time. (Markus and Zajonc 1985)

Additionally Forman and Selly identified several biases that may affect the decision

making process. "Plunging in" is defined as “gathering information and reaching

conclusions without thinking about the crux of the issue or how decisions like this one

should be made.” (Forman and Selly 2001, 4) Also, "Frame Blindness" is defined as,

“setting out to solve the wrong problem because your framework causes you to overlook

attractive options or lose sight of important objectives.” (Forman and Selly 2001, 4)”

“Lack of Frame Control” is defined as “failing to define the problem in more ways than

one, or being unduly influenced by the frames of others.”(Forman and Selly 2001, 4)

“Shooting from the Hip” is defined as “trying to keep straight in your head all the

information relating to the decision rather than relying on a systematic procedure”

(Forman and Selly 2001, 4). “Preference over preference” occurs when the decision

maker has a clear preference for a course of action that affects his choices (Mintz and

DeRouen 2008)

Task Complexity and Strategy Selection

Task complexity has for long been an importantly researched area in decision making.

Generally it has been found that the more complex a task is, the more heuristics (or

cognitive shortcuts) are applied in order to make a decision. (Payne, Bettman, and

Johnson 1993) “Task complexity can be manipulated through changes in the number of

8

alternatives available (the presence of more alternatives implies more complexity) and

changes in the number of attributes on which the alternatives are described (the presence

of more attributes implies more complexity.)” (Payne, Bettman, and Johnson 1993).

Furthermore Payne, Bettman and Johnson found that decision processes are highly

sensitive to the number of alternatives in a decision. The more alternatives there are in a

decision, the more complex it becomes and thus heuristics are applied regularly, however

when there are less alternatives a more compensatory approach is utilized in the decision

choice set. (Payne, Bettman, and Johnson 1993).

Previous studies on the subject (Payne, Betterman, Johnson 1993, Ford et al. 1989;

Mintz, Geva Redd and Carnes 1997) have found that there are two ways of analyzing a

decision before making a final choice, alternative based thinking or dimensioned based

thinking. The alternative based strategy focuses on reviewing one alternative across the

different dimensions presented, repeating the same process for all alternatives; while the

dimension based strategy focuses on reviewing one dimension across all the alternatives

repeating the same process for all dimensions. (Mintz, Geva, Redd and Carnes 1997)

Furthermore Mintz, Geva, Redd, and Carnes show that the move from alternative based

strategy to the dimension based strategy can be explained as “a movement between more

complex, more demanding, compensatory tradeoff reasoning (associated with the

alternative-based strategy) and less complex, less demanding, non-compensatory rules

(associated with a dimension-based strategy)”. (Mintz, Geva Redd and Carnes 1997).

9

The causes of strategy selection have been widely researched. A study conducted by

Beach and Mitchell (1978) explains that strategy selection is dependant on both the

characteristics of the decision task and the individual decision maker. The decision

problem itself will also affect the strategy selection of a decision maker. For example, the

ambiguity of the task, the amount of relevant information and the degree to which

problems will influence future decisions affects strategy selection (Billings and Scherer

1988). “In foreign policy decision making, Mintz and Geva found that the familiarity of

the decision maker with the choice set affects the selection of a decision strategy” (Mintz,

Geva Redd and Carnes 1997) When they compared search patterns containing familiar

and unfamiliar alternatives, they found that dimension-based patterns were usually

correlated to the unfamiliar and thus more cognitively demanding scenarios, while

alternative-based search was more common in the familiar sphere. Other variables also

affect the way decisions are made. Accountability, for example, may influence the final

choice because a decision maker who needs to justify his actions will take more time and

effort to collect and retain information when compared with decision makers who do not

have to justify any of their decisions. (Mintz, Geva 1997). Another example is when

levels of stress are considered. Maoz (1997) “Found a significant relationship between

levels of stress and the selection of a particular decision strategy: the analytic approach

characterizes decision making at moderate stress levels; the cybernetic approach tends to

be associated with low stress; the cognitive approach is often found at high levels of

stress.” (Mintz, Geva Redd and Carnes 1997)

10

Holistic versus Non-holstic

Holism in decision making explains the amount of information processed by a decision

maker. It is important to analyze the differences between the sexes in the area of holistic

decision making. Which of the two genders, takes a more holistic approach to make a

decision and which one makes the decisions based on biases previously presented?

Holistic decision making comes from the general system's theory. Systems theory is an

area of study specifically developed following the World Wars from the work of Ludwig

von Bertalanffy, Anatol Rapoport, Kenneth E. Boulding, William Ross Ashby, Margaret

Mead, Gregory Bateson, C. West Churchman and others in the 1950s. Holistic decision

making contains several characteristics as Mulej, Ecimovic and Bozicnik state, it is

interdependent, open and interconnected, it is complex, systemic and considers the whole

picture, it relates to networking, interaction and interplay. (Mulej, Ecimovic and

Bozicnik) Non-holistic thinking is simple, isolationist, contains "no process of making

new attributes", has "no new attributes resulting from relations between elements" looks

at "parts and partial attributes only and has no "mutual influences" (Mulej, Ecimovic and

Bozicnik) Thus it can be said, that the more information a person processes the more

holistic he or she will be while making a decision. When the decision maker processes

limited amount of information and excludes certain types of relevant or irrelevant

information to his particular problem, then the decision maker is less holistic or non-

holistic.

11

Process Tracing and Decision Board Platform

Theories of cognitive and social psychology can cut across many disciplines where they

can be used in order to explain certain phenomena. Process tracing can be used in order

to test these theories across any discipline. It was first advocated by George in 1979 “Its

main strength is its ability to identify specific strategies used by decision makes and to

test theoretically derived implications of situational and personal variables on the

decision process and its outcome” (Mintz, Geva Redd and Carnes 1997). According to

Ford (1989), process tracing can be used in order to identify which information is

accessed and in what are the sequence patterns. With this information it is possible to

determine what strategies were employed in order to arrive to a certain choice. The study

of cognitive decision making using process tracing in combination with decision board

(Mintz et al. 1997), can help to increase the understanding of decision making strategies.

The decision board platform (Mintz et al. 1997) is a computerized software developed by

Alex Mintz, that shows a matrix with a number of alternatives and dimensions. It allows

the decision maker to analyze relevant information inside the matrix and make a decision.

The software will allow the creator of the experiment to see the sequence or pattern of

decisions a subject used while processing information. This information can later be

utilized in order to determine the cognitive process of decision making conducted by a

subject. The decision board can also determine if the subject maximized or satisficed his

decision as well as the amount of information a subject actually viewed.

12

Method

Subjects

Two different experiments were conducted, in the first one (Experiment A), 72 people

participated: 36 women and 36 men; in the second (Experiment B), 150 people

participated: 75 women and 75 men. The subjects were not the same in both experiments.

The experiments were conducted online and were open for participation to anyone

interested in doing so. The subjects were mainly adults from Mexico and Israel however

a smaller population of European subjects also participated. All of the people who

participated were either studying a first degree or had completed a minimum of one

degree in different areas of study.

Design

The aims of the experiments were to find differences in decision making process and end

results between men and women. It focused on maximizing versus satisficing results,

holistic and non-holistic approaches, biases on dimensions and/or alternatives by the two

genders, task complexity and strategy selection. The first experiment (experiment A) had

only 2 alternatives and 5 dimensions while the second experiment (Experiment B) had 4

alternatives and 5 dimensions. Both experiments presented the exact same scenario for

men and women to resolve, and the results were recorded separately. The subjects that

participated in each experiment were not the same.

13

Dependent variables

The dependent variables consisted on several parameters. The sequence of decision

utilized by the subjects was used in order to compute biases and strategy selection, the

number of cells viewed on each matrix was used in order to compute holism results, and

the final choice was used in order to compute maximizing versus satisficing results.

The Research Instrument

The decision board computerized tracing system (et al. 1997 Mintz) was utilized in this

experiment. It was composed of a matrix of 2 alternatives by 5 dimensions (2 X 5) in the

first experiment (experiment A) and a matrix of 4 alternatives by 5 dimensions (4 X 5) in

the second experiment (experiment B). The decision board software allows to trace the

cognitive decision making process that each individual undergoes while conducting the

experiment. It allows us to view the sequence of information viewed by the subjects, the

maximizing versus satisficing results and holistic versus non-holistic approaches, task

complexity and decision strategies undertaken by each individual. (Mintz)

In the first experiment (experiment A) , each of the subjects was presented with a

hypothetical scenario of a foreign policy decision, in which they had two alternatives to

choose from; either to conduct an air strike or not to do so. The subjects were told they

were the president of a country and had full control over the decision. (See Appendix A)

The 2 alternatives were either to conduct a military strike or not to strike. The 5

dimensions were Military, Economic, Moral, Foreign Political and Domestic Political.

The subjects were also told to weigh each of the dimensions from 0 to 10 according to

14

what they thought was most important concerning the conflict. This is an important

factor that allows the maximizing result to vary from one alternative to another,

according to the weights chosen by the subjects and the already pre rated implications.

Moreover, the subjects could open any cell from the matrix in any order they wished, to

see the ratings and the reasons for each implication to be rated that way (See Appendix

A). By doing this the subjects could gather more information before having to decide on

a final choice. They had no time limit, and could open each cell as many times as they

wished to do so. The second experiment (Experiment B) had the exact same dimensions

but 2 more alternatives were added: to conduct negotiations, and to start a full scale

military attack. Moreover the second study includes more subjects than the first. The

weights and pre rated implication system was exactly the same in both studies; the only

things that changed were different subjects, additional alternatives, and a larger number

of subjects.

Research Material

Subjects were given a scenario framed in a way to convince the subjects that utilizing the

air strike alternative would be the best option. “Your military intelligence has been able

to spot the place where the dictator of Beta is situated and have assured you that with his

elimination the conflict will surely end and war will be prevented” Also included was the

certainty factor, that showed that an air strike would most probably be successful.

Nevertheless, the inclusion of the moral ethical question that “10 families are in the

building and at least a dozen children are situated in the same place” made the moral

dimension an important one to consider. To make that argument even stronger it was

15

revealed to the subjects that, “you are also aware that you can still win the war by regular

conventional warfare.” Moreover the subjects had to weigh each of the dimensions

according to their thoughts, thus giving them the opportunity to change the maximizing

result for any of the alternatives.

Procedure

The experiments were conducted over the internet with known relatives from Mexico,

Israel, and other countries. The requisite was for the subjects to have at least a first degree

or are in the process of getting one.. The online version of Decision Board Platform

(Version 4.0) (Mintz et al 1997) was used to conduct the experiment. Subjects that

entered the scenario were informed that they were president of country Alpha and a

conflict with neighboring conflict Beta erupted, they were informed that the only

possibility to prevent war was by striking the leader of Beta who was situated in a

building that also had families and children there at the time, or by negotiating (only in

the second scenario). The subjects were told that the leader would most probably not be

found at a later time and had only ten minutes to decide either to strike or not to do so,

(even though the subjects were not timed) (See Appendix A) The subjects were later told

to weigh the dimensions from 0 to 10 according to how they believed each dimension

was important, and were told they could explore the implications (cells) in order to help

them make a better decision.

16

Results

Maximizing vs. Satisficing

In experiment A, men and women were able to maximize equally. It was found that, 27

men maximized choice as opposed to 9 who satisficed, whereas 26 women maximized

and 10 satisficed. The difference in one subject is well within the margin of error for this

experiment. The table below shows the results for men and women in the first

experiment.

Maximizing vs. Satisficing Experiment A

Maximizing Satisficing

Men 75.00% (27) 25.00% (9)

Women 72.22% (26) 27.78% (10)

In Experiment B both sexes were able to maintain the exact same difference than in

experiment A. 33 men maximized output while 42 satisficed; meanwhile 32 women

maximized and 43 satisficed. The difference between the two again remained well under

the margin of error. The table below shows the results for men and women in experiment

B.

Maximizing vs. Satisficing Experiment B

Maximizing Satisficing

Men 44.00% (33) 56.00% (42) Women 42.67% (32) 57.33% (43)

By comparing the two experiments we can see no difference regarding results,

whatsoever between the two. The only clear difference is that more men as well as

17

women maximized much more in experiment A while experiment B most of the subjects

of both genders satisficed. The table below shows the differences between experiment A

and experiment B

Percentage Changes from Experiment A to Experiment B

Maximizing Satisficing Men Decreased

41.33% Increased

124% Women Decreased

40.92% Increased 106.48%

The percentage changes between experiment A and experiment B are very close to each

other. Both genders increased and decreased very similar percentages from one

experiment to the other. The increments in satisficing (and decrements on maximizing)

on both sides is explained by the much more complex decision problem presented by the

second experiment. It was expected that the capacity of both genders to maximize with

more alternatives would decrease. It is clear that in both experiments the difference

between men and women is under the margin of error thus both genders are able to

maximize and satisfice under both a 2 alternative matrix scenario and a 4 alternative

matrix scenario in the same way.

Biases

Biases can be recorded in different forms. There are alternative biases which are those

where entire alternatives are not looked upon in the matrix. This type of bias is one which

locks in the subject into one or more alternatives leaving others unseen. Moreover,

dimension biases also exist, these are exactly the same as alternative biases; however, in

these occasions subjects decide to disregard a certain dimension, or lock in into one or

18

more dimensions leaving others unseen. Furthermore, there were subjects who also had

both alternative and dimension biases in the same matrix, thus another measurement was

created for this type of subjects. In addition, there are those subjects who did not actually

view any or mostly any of the information in the matrix, this may be due to the fact that

the subjects already knew what they wanted to answer, and did not see the advice

(implications) on the matrix. This action I refer to as preference bias. Finally there were

subjects who did not have any bias whatsoever.

In experiment A, 14 men had no bias, 13 had a preference bias, 1 had a dimension bias, 7

had alternative biases and 1 had both alternative and dimension biases. By contrast to

women who had less biases in general only 2 had a dimension bias, 5 an alternative bias,

2 both alternative and dimension biases, 8 preference biases and 19 had no bias at all.

The table below shows the results

Experiment A. Differences in Biases between Men and Women

Dimension Biases

Alternative Biases

Both Dimension and

Alternative Biases

Preference Biases

No biases

Men 2.78% (1) 19.44% (7) 2.78% (1) 36.11% (13) 38.89% (14)

Women 5.56% (2) 13.89% (5) 5.56% (2) 22.22% (8) 52.78% (19)

It can be clearly seen that women in general had less biases than men in experiment A;

only 47.22% of women had some type of bias while 52.78% had no bias at all. However,

men presented different results, 61.11% had a bias of some sort while the remaining

38.89% had no biases at all.

19

In experiment B men had 7 dimension biases, 19 alternative biases, 1 alternative and

dimension bias, 27 preference biases, and 28 had no biases at all. Women similarly had 8

dimension biases 14 alternative biases, 5 dimension and alternative biases exactly 27

preference biases (equal to men) and 21 had no biases at all (just as men) The results are

shown on the table below.

Experiment B. Differences in Biases between Men and Women

Dimension Biases

Alternative Biases

Both Dimension

and Alternative

Biases

Preference Biases

No biases

Men 9.33% (7) 25.33% (19) 1.33% (1) 36.00% (27) 28.00% (21)

Women 10.67% (8) 18.67% (14) 6.67% (5) 36.00% (27) 28.00% (21)

Experiment B shows that 72% of both men and women had some type of bias while 28%

had no bias at all. Furthermore, both men and women had an equal amount of preference

biases (36%) and 28% of the subjects had no biases at all. Both genders reduced the no

biases dramatically from experiment A to experiment B; this is due to the fact that

experiment B was more complex since it included more dimensions. The complexity of

the task is thus a function of having increasing or decreasing biases. The more complex a

decision task becomes the more will subjects (both men and women) have some sort of a

bias. The comparison of the two experiments (the difference between the changes in

percentages from one experiment to the other) can be seen in the table below.

20

Percentage Changes from Experiment A to Experiment B

Dimension Biases

Alternative Biases

Both Dimension

and Alternative

Biases

Preference Biases

No biases

Men Increased

235.62%

Increased

30.29%

Decreased

52.16%

Decreased

.30%

Decreased

28.00%

Women Increased

91.91%

Increased

34.41%

Increased

19.96%

Increased

62.02%

Decreased

46.95%

The results in both experiments show, that in a controlled environment when there is a

decision making problem presenting two alternatives women will have less biases than

men; however once the decision making problem becomes more complex, the numbers

seem to even out. Experiment B (with five alternatives) shows us how the numbers are

much more alike between men and women in contrast to experiment A (with two

alternatives) It seems that the complexity of the task affected women in making more

biases much more than it affected men.

Task Complexity and Strategy Selection

Strategy selection was recorded by analyzing the process by which subjects viewed the

decision problem. The subjects were divided into four categories: those who view the

matrix horizontally, those who view it vertically, those who view it both vertically and

horizontally and those who don’t view it either way. The latter ones are those who had

undetermined random patters or those who didn’t view the matrix implication cells at all.

It is important to note that the pattern in which a subject views the decision problem can

21

show us how complex the task is. Viewing a matrix horizontally will be the result of a

more complex decision problem however; viewing a matrix vertically usually

demonstrates that the decision problem is less complex for that specific subject.

In experiment A, 17 men viewed the matrix horizontally, 14 viewed it vertically, 2

viewed the matrix both horizontally and vertically and 3 did not view it either way. In the

same experiment also 17 women viewed the matrix horizontally, 12 viewed it vertically,

2 viewed the matrix both horizontally and vertically and 5 did not view it either way.

The table below shows the results of experiment A.

Differences between Men and Women in Strategy Selection. Experiment A

Horizontal Vertical Both Horizontal and

Vertical

None

Men 47.22% (17) 38.89% (14) 5.56% (2) 8.33% (3)

Women 47.22% (17) 33.33% (12) 5.56% (2) 13.89% (5)

The results presented in strategy selection in Experiment A were quite similar. Both men

and women had close numbers in the way their pattern of decision was selected. 47.22%

of both men and women viewed the 2 alternative matrix experiment horizontally. This

constitutes the majority of the subjects.

In experiment B, 32 men viewed the matrix horizontally while 17 viewed it vertically, 2

viewed the matrix both horizontally and vertically and 24 did not view it either way. In

the same experiment, 23 women viewed the matrix horizontally, 19 vertically, 9 viewed it

22

both horizontally and vertically and 23 did not view it either way. The table below shows

the results of experiment B.

Differences between Men and Women in Strategy Selection. Experiment B

Horizontal Vertical Both Horizontal and

Vertical

None

Men 42.67% (32) 22.67% (17) 2.67% (2) 32% (24)

Women 30.67% (23) 25.33% (19) 12% (9) 30.67% (23)

In this experiment, the results present a gap between men and women. Previous

experiment A presented very similar results between both genders, however in this

experiment results vary. More men viewed the matrix horizontally which means they

must have considered the scenario problem more complex than most women did. Also

12% of women viewed the matrix both horizontally and vertically; this means that in the

first round they viewed the matrix one way and then they decided to start again and

viewed the matrix the other way as well. It means that more women approached the

scenario problem in two different perspectives while only 2.67% of men did the same.

When a problem is more complex, men will analyze the problem horizontally (more

demanding) and more women will approach the problem in two different perspectives

(more analytical). However if we add the percentages of those who viewed the matrix

both horizontally and vertically to those who viewed the matrix only horizontally the

results are quite similar, men viewed 45.34% (42.67% + 2.67% ) horizontally while

women viewed 42.67% (30.67% + 12%) horizontally. This means both men and women

mostly equally viewed the matrix horizontally. If applied to the vertical perspective

however, men viewed 25.34% (22.67% + 2.67%) vertically; while women viewed

23

37.33% (25.33% + 12%) vertically. This shows that more women approached the matrix

vertically than men. The main difference however was that a larger percentage of women

viewed the matrix both ways, which means they had a more analytical and in depth

analysis to a more cognitively demanding problem.

The differences between experiment A and B are clear. Both men and women decreased

in both horizontal and vertical approaches in experiment B. Moreover both genders

increased their decision not to view the scenario problem in any way. This is due to the

fact that experiment B was more cognitively demanding than experiment A, thus both

genders decided that in depth analysis of the problem was not needed and took cognitive

shortcuts to reach a decision. Even though the horizontal approach decreased from

experiment A and B, the vertical approach also decreased. The increments were mostly

viewed in the “None” section, where men and women decided not to view the matrix

systematically but rather randomly or not at all. The main difference between men and

women is that women increased their ability to analyze a problem as it became more

demanding, while men decreased this ability. The table below shows the differences from

Experiment A to Experiment B.

Percentage Change from Experiment A to Experiment B

Horizontal Vertical Both Horizontal and Vertical

None

Men Decreased by

9.6%

Decreased by

41.71%

Decreased by

51.98%

Increased by

284%

Women Decreased by

35.05%

Decreased by

24%

Increased by

53.66%

Increased by

120.81%

24

Holistic versus Non-holstic

Holism can be measured by the number of cells viewed in a matrix by any subject. The

more cells a subject views in a matrix the more holistic he/she becomes. In both

Experiment A and Experiment B this measurement was recorded in order to view

differences in holistic approaches between both genders.

Women and men had some differences in their holistic approach in their process of

decision making. It was found that in Experiment A, men viewed an average of 6.69 cells

out of 10 or 66.94% while women viewed an average of 7.19 cells out of 10 or 71.94%.

This shows that women had a more holistic approach in their decision making process,

since they were more keen on viewing their options before deciding on a final choice. In

contrast, men had fewer cells viewed and took a more non-holistic approach towards their

decisions.

Experiment B expanded the number of cells in the matrix from 10 to 20. It was found that

men viewed an average of 10.04 cells out of 20 or 50.2% while women viewed an

average of 9.88 cells out of 20 or 49.4%. This shows that both men and women had an

almost equal approach in their holistic process during decision making. Men had a

slightly higher outcome than women (however well within the margin of error.)

Both men and women decreased their holism from experiment A to experiment B. This is

due to the fact that Experiment B presented double the amount of cells than experiment

25

A. Experiment B was more cognitively demanding thus fewer subjects reviewed all the

information available to them. The percentage change from experiment A to experiment

B is as follows: men had a percent decrease of 33.35% while women decreased by

45.63%.

Conclusion

Academics and scientists from many disciplines have been trying to find similarities and

differences between the genders for a very long time. John Grey in 1992 attempted to

show and concentrate only in psychological differences between the genders in his

renowned book “Men are from Mars Women are from Venus” (Grey, 1992) Moreover,

recently scientists studying the brains have also found physical differences between men

and women. In this experiment, I set out to try and find differences or similarities in the

process of making decisions between men and women. I sought to analyze 4 different

variables in order to expand the possibilities and identify similarities and/or differences

between the sexes.

The two experiments conducted were done in order to attempt to find discrepancies

between the genders by expanding the number of subjects and the complexity of the

experiment. Rational choice was a firstly analyzed showing no clear differences between

men and women. The statement that women are less or more rational than men is

mistaken, and both experiment A and B prove so. Both genders were able to maximize

choice in the same way showing no clear advantage for any specific gender.

26

In the area of biases, differences were found in Experiment A however, Experiment B

closed the gaps. 47.22% of women had some type of bias while 52.78% had no bias at

all. However, men presented different results, 61.11% had a bias of some sort while the

remaining 38.89% had no biases at all. Clearly it shows that women have fewer biases

under a controlled environment in a decision matrix consisting of two alternatives. When

expanding to 4 alternatives both men and women have the same amount of overall biases.

In less cognitively demanding situations women will present less biases than men.

However, when the decision problem becomes more cognitively demanding both men

and women have the same amount of biases. For both genders a more cognitively

demanding problem will increase their biases.

Viewing the matrix in one way or another becomes an important factor when looking at

the process of decision making among subjects. It may well be that subjects both

maximize and satisfice in the same way. However; the pattern in which you approach the

problem might be different among subjects. In experiment A (the less cognitively

demanding experiment) both men and women had equal numbers when choosing a

pattern. Very similar amount of men and women viewed the matrix in a horizontal

pattern, a vertical pattern, both vertical and horizontal patterns, and random patterns.

Nonetheless, when a more cognitively demanding decision problem arose (Experiment

B), differences were found. It is important to show that when a subject does both vertical

and horizontal patterns it means he first viewed the matrix utilizing one pattern and when

finished, the subject began looking at the matrix again utilizing a different pattern. Thus

this percentage can be added to both the vertical and horizontal results of both men and

27

women. In experiment A they had an equal amount therefore no differences were found;

however in Experiment B, 12% of women viewed the matrix twice with both patterns

while only 2.67% of men did the same. This demonstrates three things: 1) both men and

women equally viewed the matrix horizontally, 2) more women viewed the matrix

vertically and, 3) more women viewed the matrix both ways. The decline in choosing a

decision pattern from experiment A to experiment B is due to the fact that experiment B

is more cognitively demanding and thus less subjects want to increase their capacity and

prefer to randomly view cells or not view them at all. However, women proved to have a

better capacity to respond to complexity since 12% of them analyzed the problem

utilizing two patterns in comparison to 2.67% of men. Nevertheless, random selection

(or no selection at all), was mostly equal showing that both men and women have similar

approaches to viewing decision tasks.

When analyzing holistic versus non-holistic results we can conclude that both men and

women decreased their ability to view a problem as a whole when the problem became

more complex. Also, we learned that both men and women have similar approaches

towards holism under a controlled environment. However; Experiment A demonstrates

that women more holistic than men when looking at a two alternative decision problem.

While Experiment B proves that men were more holistic than women when looking at a 4

alternative decision problem. Nonetheless both experiments presented close numbers

which can be under the margin of error thus eliminating the possibility of being too

different.

28

For centuries divisions between men and women have been clear. Women were secluded

for most of human history and men took the leadership role in the world. In present times

women’s equality rights have grown. Many claim women and men are not different in

any way and must be allowed to fulfill the same roles; while others claim that women and

men are different physically and mentally therefore each person must fulfill specific

roles. This experiment attempted to find differences and/or similarities between genders

to further discover if such differences can make one gender better fit for a specific role

than another. To conclude the paper, I would say that no clear evidence shows that

neither gender is better than the other while making decisions. Both have similarities in

many of their choices and differences in some other aspects; however no single gender is

inferior to the other while making decisions.

29

Appendix A

The Scenario Experiment A and B

You are the president of the Republic of Alpha, a country rich in resources that has

prospered for many years. The democratic republic of Beta is a country that has been

taken over by a tough dictator and tensions have emerged between both countries. The

Betan army has mobilized its forces very close to the border of Alpha, and your

intelligence services are sure that Beta will start a war within a week. Your military

intelligence has been able to spot the place where the dictator of Beta is situated and have

assured you that with his elimination the conflict will surely end and war will be

prevented. However, they have also informed you that 10 families are in the building and

at least a dozen children are situated in the same place. Moreover they can only strike this

place with an air strike in the next 10 minutes if it is not done the military may not be

able to find him later during the war.. However you are also aware that you can still win

the war by regular conventional warfare. This option will obviously cause more loss of

life from your side

Please look at the table below. You have five dimensions (Economic, Military, Moral,

Foreign Political and Domestic Political) please rate from 0 to 10, the weight of each of

these 5 dimensions according to how you think these dimensions are important to your

decision. 0 being not important at all, 10 being extremely important. Remember the

weight column is the one furthest to the right.

30

Then take a look at the possibilities presented to you by the table. Each cell represents

implications and contains ratings that will help you make a final choice. The ratings

represent the effect of each choice on the corresponding dimension. The ratings in this

case are from -10 to 10. -10 being a very negative outcome and 10 being a very positive

one; and 0 being no effect

31

Appendix B

Decision Making Matrix for Men and Women Experiment A

Alternatives

Dimensions Strike Do Not Strike Weight Economic The economy would remain in

good conditions since you prevented war. the economy

will stay as it is now Rating = 0

Not striking will make it harder for the

economy since war will break out and an

economic crisis will hit Alpha

Rating = -9

Added By

Subject

Military By striking you will solve the conflict militarily and show the great capabilities your army has

while increasing Alphas deterrence capabilities

Rating = 10

By not striking, the military will be

affected by a longer war, and will suffer many causalities.

Rating = -8

Added By

Subject

Moral By striking, you will have to bear with the responsibility for

the killings of children and families unrelated to the

conflict Rating = -10

It would be moral not to strike since you

know that innocents are residing in that

building. Rating = 8

Added By

Subject

Foreign Political By striking the international community will be against you and condemn you for initiating an attack and killing innocent people. They will also blame

you for being the first to shoot. Rating = -8

If you wait and the war breaks out afterwards,

the international community will be

with you and may even interfere in the conflict by siding with you and

sending you troops, weapons and aid.

Rating = 8

Added By

Subject

Domestic Political You will become very popular within your country for ending the war and saving thousands

that could have died in the conflict

Rating = 10

Your constituency will not know that you had

the opportunity to strike, however there

will be general discontent for a war breaking out in the

country. Rating = -2

Added By

Subject

Final Choice

32

Appendix C

Decision Making Matrix for Men and Women Experiment B

Dimensions Preemptive Full Military Attack

Strike Do Not Strike Attempt to Negotiate

Weight

Economic The economy will suffer losses

because of the war that would

erupt Rating = -9

The economy would remain in good conditions

since you prevented war.

the economy will stay as it is now

Rating = 0

Not striking will make it harder for

the economy since war will

break out and an economic crisis will hit Alpha Rating = -9

The economy

will remain the same during

negotiations Rating = 0

Added By

Subject

Military The military will have an

advantage as it will attack first taking the Betan

Army by surprise.

Rating = 5

By striking you will solve the

conflict militarily and show the

great capabilities your army has

while increasing Alphas

deterrence capabilities Rating = 10

By not striking, the military will be affected by a longer war, and will suffer many

causalities. Rating = -8

The military will not be

happy about the decision to negotiate

with the enemy

Rating = -4

Added By

Subject

Moral A Preemptive strike could be considered as self defense in this scenario thus not an

unmoral decision.

Rating = 5

By striking, you will have to bear

with the responsibility for

the killings of children and

families unrelated to the conflict Rating = -10

It would be moral not to strike since

you know that innocents are

residing in that building.

Rating = 8

Negotiating is a moral decision

Rating = 9

Added By

Subject

Foreign Political

The Preemptive strike will bring

big problems with the

international community as it will be perceived that Alpha began the war with no

justification Rating = -9

By striking the international

community will be against you

and condemn you for initiating an

attack and killing innocent people. They will also blame you for

being the first to shoot.

Rating = -8

If you wait and the war breaks out afterwards, the international community will be with you and

may even interfere in the

conflict by siding with you and sending you

troops, weapons and aid.

Rating = 8

The international community will be in favor of Alpha's

willingness to negotiate with Beta Rating = 9

Added By

Subject

Domestic The general You will become Your Your Added

33

Political feeling of the population will

be in favor of the government for a

preemptive strike because of

the threat perceived on Alpha by the population of

Beta Rating = 7

very popular within your country for

ending the war and saving

thousands that could have died in the conflict Rating = 10

constituency will not know that you had the

opportunity to strike, however

there will be general

discontent for a war breaking out in the country.

Rating = -2

population does not believe

Negotiations will lead to anything rather than showing

weakness. And do not

support negotiating with Betan

dictator who seeks their

own destruction

Rating = -10

By Subject

Final Choice

34

References

Mintz, Alex and Steven B. Red 2007. Biases in Decision Making and their Influence on Counter-Terrorism Decisions: A Computerized Experiment In Paper prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. Chicago Illinois.

Conner G Michael. 1999. Understanding the Differences Between Men and Women

http://www.oregoncounseling.org/ArticlesPapers/Documents/DifferencesMenWomen.htm

Renate Schubert, Martin Brown, Matthias Gysler and Hans Wolfgang Brachinger 1999. Financial Decision-Making: Are Women Really More Risk-Averse?, in The American Economic Review, Vol. 89, No. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the One Hundred Eleventh Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association Hoag, Hannah. 2008 Sex on the Brain. New Scientist Vol. 199 issue 2665. United Kingdom.

Simon, Herbert 1957. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice", in Models of

Man, Social and Rational: Mathematical Essays on Rational Human Behavior in a Social Setting. New York: Wiley.

Rubinstein, Ariel 1998. Modeling Bounded Rationality. The MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts. Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Marcus, Hazel and R.B Zanjoc. 1985. “The Cognitive Perspective in Social Psychology” In The Handbook of Social Psychology, vol. 1, ed. Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Random House.

Forman, Ernest H., and Mary Ann Selly. 2001. Decision by Objectives: How to

Convince Others that You are Right. River Edge, NJ: World Scientific. Mintz, Alex and Karl. R. DeRouen. 2008. Essentials of Foreign Policy Decision

Making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Forthcoming. Matjaz Mulej, Timi Ecimovic and Stane Bozicnik “The role of decision making

from the perspective of systems thinking – the case of climate change” University of Maribor, Faculty for Economics and Business

Mintz, Alex, Nehemia Geva, Steven B Redd and Amy Carnes. 1997. “The Effect

of Dynamic and Static Choice Sets on Political Decision Making: An Analysis Using the decision Board Plataform.” American Political Science Review 91:553-66

35

Payne W. John, James R. Betterman, Eric J. Johnson. 1993 The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mintz, Alex, and Nehemia Geva. 1997. “The Poliheuristic Theory of Foreign Policy Decisionmaking.” In Decisionmaking on War and Peace: The Cognitive-Rational Debate, ed. Nehamia Geva and Alex Mintz. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Grey John. 1993. Men are from Mars Women are from Venus: A Practical Guide fro Improving Communication and Getting What you Want in Your Relationships HarperCollins. New York, NY.