Abstract
Studying Jeopardy! contestants in the US, we explore whether and when gender differences in performance in competitive settings and risk-taking emerge with age and by opponents’ gender. We identify no gender differences in winning episodes, responding, or responding correctly to clues. Male teenagers (but not children) wager substantially more than female teenagers, leading to the emergence of the gender gap, equivalent to a 7.3 percentage point difference. This gap persists for college students. Finally, male teenagers and college students wager substantially less when competing against females, whereas the gender of opponents does not influence the behavior of young female contestants.
Acknowledgements
Julia Debski provided excellent research assistance for this project. We are grateful to Alison Booth, Thomas Buser, Edwin Ip, and Shanthi Manian, as well as participants of the 2018 Australian Gender Economics Workshop and the IZA Workshop on Gender and Family Economics for helpful comments and discussions. All remaining errors are our own.
Appendix
Recent articles trying to explain the age at which the gender gap in performance and risk attitudes appears (listed chronologically).
| Study | Research Setting | Sample | N | Task | Payoffs | Main Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Panel A: Gender differences in competitiveness | ||||||
| Gneezy and Rustichini (2004) | Field experiment | 9–10 year olds in Israel | 140 | Footraces | None | Competition improves performance for boys but not for girls. |
| Booth and Nolen (2012a) | Lab experiment | UK students near 15 years of age | 260 | Solving mazes | Average payout 7 pounds | Girls from same sex schools behave more competitively. |
| Cárdenas et al. (2012) | Field experiment | 9–12 year olds in Colombia and Sweden | 1240 | Running, skipping rope, math and word search | No pay run/skip rope; Math/word search age 7–12 pens/age 12–16 money | Boys and girls equally competitive Columbia. Results mixed in Sweden, girls more competitive some tasks and boys more likely to compete generally. |
| Andersen et al. (2013) | Field experiment | 7–15 year olds in India | 318 | Throwing balls into buckets | 10–30 rupees per shot | Matriarchal society no gender differences emerge with puberty, in patriarchal females less competitive (age 13–15). |
| Samak (2013) | Field experiment | 3–5 year olds in the United States | 123 | Fishing task | Candy | Boys and girls compete at equal rates. Same gender opponent does not affect performance. |
| Dreber, von Essen, and Ranehill (2014) | Field experiment | 7–10 year olds in Sweden | 149 run/146 dance/143 skip rope | Running, dancing, and skipping rope | None | No difference in gender reaction to competition in any task. |
| De Paola, Gioia, and Scoppa (2015) | Field experiment | Italian undergraduate students | 720 | Midterm exam | Extra credit added to exam score | Women similar to men regardless of competitor gender and across competitive/non-competitive environments. |
| Khachatryan et al. (2015) | Field experiment | 7–16 year olds in Armenia | 824 | Skipping rope, math task, and verbal task | No compensation awarded | Girls increase competition more than boys running, no difference in willingness to compete other tasks. |
| Sutter and Glätzle-Rützler (2015) | Field experiment | 3–18 year olds in Austria | Exp 1/2/3 samples 412/441/717 | Running task, manual task, math task | Running/manual task pencils, stickers, sweets. Math task cash average 6.58 €. | Running and math perform equally well, manual task girls better than boys. Boys choose competitive payment more often all tasks. |
| Säve-Söderbergh and Lindquist (2017) | Game show data | 10–11 year olds and adults in Sweden | 221 10–11 year olds; 448 adults | Swedish Jeopardy! score accumulation and winning contest | Cash prize contestant with highest score at end of match | Girls performed better, were more likely to answer questions correctly, and won more frequently when opponents female. |
| Panel B: Gender differences in risk taking | ||||||
| Lindquist and Säve-Söderbergh (2011) | Game show data | Adults in Sweden | 316 | Point wagers | Cash prize for contestant with highest score at end of match | Females wager 25 % less of accumulated score when wagering against all male group, compared to mixed or all female group. |
| Booth and Nolen (2012b) | Lab experiment | UK students near 15 years of age | 260 | Coin flip with decision choice affecting payout | Average payout 7 £ | Females assume same amount of risk as males when attend same sex school, female only experimental group increases risk taking. |
| Cárdenas et al. (2012) | Field experiment | 9–12 year olds in Colombia and Sweden | 1240 | Coin flip or safe with varying payouts | Points earned turned into pens and erasers awarded | Boys both countries more risk taking, smaller gap in Sweden. |
| Booth, Cardona-Sosa, and Nolen (2014) | Lab experiment | UK undergraduate students | 219 | Risk aversion questionnaire | Maximum possible 30 £ | Females generally less risk taking, when allocated single sex environment more apt to choose risky situation relative to mixed sex. |
| Khachatryan et al. (2015) | Field experiment | 7–16 year olds in Armenia | 824 | Coin flip or safe with varying payouts | Points earned for age 7–12 for pens, 12–16 money | Boys more risk taking than girls, dissipates near puberty. |
| Säve-Söderbergh and Lindquist (2017) | Game show data | 10–11 year olds and adults in Sweden | 221 10–11 year olds; 448 adults | Point wagers | Cash prize for contestant with highest score at end of match. | No gender gap risk taking at 10–11 years of age. Girls take more risks than women, boys fewer risks than men and women. |
Summary statistics for kids sample.
| Mean | (Std. dev.) | Mean | (Std. dev.) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Panel A: Winning an episode (N = 186) | Panel B: Answering (N = 10,878) | |||||
| Winning | 0.33 | (0.47) | Answering | 0.34 | (0.47) | |
| Female | 0.48 | (0.50) | Female | 0.48 | (0.50) | |
| Black | 0.10 | (0.30) | Black | 0.10 | (0.30) | |
| White | 0.65 | (0.48) | White | 0.65 | (0.48) | |
| Other race | 0.25 | (0.43) | Other race | 0.25 | (0.43) | |
| STEM clue | 0.07 | (0.25) | ||||
| Initial $ value | 930.23 | (1,013.51) | ||||
| $ score | 4,711.33 | (4,894.24) | ||||
| Relative score | 0 | (9,258.12) | ||||
|
|
||||||
| Panel C: Answering correctly (N = 3,711) | Panel D: Wagering Answering (N = 182) | |||||
| Correct | 0.84 | (0.37) | Wager in % of maximum | 0.36 | (0.29) | |
| Female | 0.47 | (0.50) | Female | 0.50 | (0.50) | |
| Black | 0.11 | (0.31) | Black | 0.12 | (0.33) | |
| White | 0.64 | (0.48) | White | 0.63 | (0.49) | |
| Other race | 0.25 | (0.43) | Other race | 0.25 | (0.44) | |
| STEM clue | 0.07 | (0.25) | STEM clue | 0.10 | (0.30) | |
| Initial $ value | 1,071.97 | (1,557.52) | Initial $ value | 1,201.65 | (475.41) | |
| $ score | 5,248.34 | (5,308.96) | $ score | 7,252.2 | (5,789.95) | |
| Relative score | 1,074.06 | (9,568.48) | Relative score | 4,211.26 | (10,683.38) | |
-
Notes: For each panel, the percentage reported by demographic group represents the percentage of the sample.
Summary statistics for teenage sample.
| Mean | (Std. dev.) | Mean | (Std. dev.) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Panel A: Winning an episode (N = 606) | Panel B: Answering (N = 36,813) | |||||
| Winning | 0.33 | (0.47) | Answering | 0.35 | (0.48) | |
| Female | 0.45 | (0.50) | Female | 0.45 | (0.50) | |
| Black | 0.07 | (0.26) | Black | 0.07 | (0.26) | |
| White | 0.73 | (0.45) | White | 0.73 | (0.44) | |
| Other race | 0.20 | (0.40) | Other race | 0.20 | (0.40) | |
| STEM clue | 0.08 | (0.27) | ||||
| Initial $ value | 815.99 | (956.46) | ||||
| $ score | 4,520.35 | (4,766.87) | ||||
| Relative score | 0 | (8,516.6) | ||||
|
|
||||||
| Panel C: Answering correctly (N = 12,789) | Panel D: Wagering Answering (N = 606) | |||||
| Correct | 0.86 | (0.35) | Wager in % of maximum | 0.45 | (0.31) | |
| Female | 0.44 | (0.50) | Female | 0.40 | (0.49) | |
| Black | 0.07 | (0.26) | Black | 0.08 | (0.27) | |
| White | 0.74 | (0.44) | White | 0.71 | (0.45) | |
| Other race | 0.19 | (0.39) | Other race | 0.21 | (0.41) | |
| STEM clue | 0.08 | (0.27) | STEM clue | 0.11 | (0.31) | |
| Initial $ value | 951.77 | (1,453.93) | Initial $ value | 1,034.16 | (509.74) | |
| $ score | 4,958.09 | (5,052.69) | $ score | 6,229.61 | (5,175.32) | |
| Relative score | 771.62 | (8,797.12) | Relative score | 2,752.99 | (8,905.46) | |
-
Notes: For each panel, the percentage reported by demographic group represents the percentage of the sample.
Summary statistics for college sample.
| Mean | (Std. dev.) | Mean | (Std. dev.) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Panel A: Winning an episode (N = 561) | Panel B: Answering (N = 34,185) | |||||
| Winning | 0.33 | (0.47) | Answering | 0.34 | (0.47) | |
| Female | 0.45 | (0.50) | Female | 0.45 | (0.50) | |
| Black | 0.06 | (0.24) | Black | 0.06 | (0.24) | |
| White | 0.74 | (0.44) | White | 0.74 | (0.44) | |
| Other race | 0.20 | (0.40) | Other race | 0.20 | (0.40) | |
| STEM clue | 0.08 | (0.26) | ||||
| Initial $ value | 783.78 | (826.12) | ||||
| $ score | 4,087.95 | (4,325.03) | ||||
| Relative score | 0 | (7,683.90) | ||||
|
|
||||||
| Panel C: Answering correctly (N = 11,604) | Panel D: Wagering Answering (N = 559) | |||||
| Correct | 0.85 | (0.36) | Wager in % of maximum | 0.44 | (0.30) | |
| Female | 0.44 | (0.50) | Female | 0.38 | (0.49) | |
| Black | 0.07 | (0.25) | Black | 0.07 | (0.26) | |
| White | 0.74 | (0.44) | White | 0.74 | (0.44) | |
| Other race | 0.19 | (0.40) | Other race | 0.18 | (0.39) | |
| STEM clue | 0.08 | (0.27) | STEM clue | 0.09 | (0.29) | |
| Initial $ value | 884.50 | (1221.28) | Initial $ value | 1,007.87 | (486.83) | |
| $ score | 4,455.23 | (4,626.68) | $ score | 5,779.79 | (4,707.96) | |
| Relative score | 727.52 | (7,958.49) | Relative score | 2,536.91 | (7,794.81) | |
-
Notes: For each panel, the percentage reported by demographic group represents the percentage of the sample.
Average number of female contestants per episode by year for Kids, Teenager, and College Student samples.
References
Andersen, S., S. Ertac, U. Gneezy, J. A. List, and S. Maximiano. 2013. “Gender, Competitiveness, and Socialization at a Young Age: Evidence from a Matrilineal and a Patriarchal Society.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 95 (4): 1438–43.10.1162/REST_a_00312Search in Google Scholar
Ariely, D., G. Loewenstein, and D. Prelec. 2003. ““Coherent Arbitrariness”: Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 118 (1): 73–106.10.1162/00335530360535153Search in Google Scholar
Beggs, A., and K. Graddy. 2009. “Anchoring Effects: Evidence from Art Auctions.” The American Economic Review 99 (3): 1027–39.10.1257/aer.99.3.1027Search in Google Scholar
Booth, A., L. Cardona-Sosa, and P. Nolen. 2014. “Gender Differences in Risk Aversion: Do Single-Sex Environments Affect their Development?” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 99: 126–54.10.32468/be.786Search in Google Scholar
Booth, A., and P. Nolen. 2012a. Choosing to Compete: How Different are Girls and Boys?” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 81 (2): 542–55.10.1016/j.jebo.2011.07.018Search in Google Scholar
Booth, A., and P. Nolen. 2012b. Gender Differences in Risk Behaviour: Does Nurture Matter?” The Economic Journal 122 (558): F56–78.10.1111/j.1468-0297.2011.02480.xSearch in Google Scholar
Booth, A., and E. Yamamura. 2018. “Performance in Mixed-Sex and Single-Sex Competitions: What We Can Learn from Speedboat Races in Japan.” Review of Economics and Statistics 100 (4): 581–93.10.1162/rest_a_00715Search in Google Scholar
Buser, T., M. Niederle, and H. Oosterbeek. 2014. “Gender, Competitiveness, and Career Choices.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 129 (3): 1409–47.10.3386/w18576Search in Google Scholar
Buser, T., N. Peter, and S. C. Wolter. 2017. “Gender, Competitiveness, and Study Choices in High School: Evidence from Switzerland.” American Economic Review Papers & Proceedings 107 (5): 125–30.10.1257/aer.p20171017Search in Google Scholar
Byrnes, J. P., D. C. Miller, and W. D. Schafer. 1999. “Gender Differences in Risk Taking: A Meta-Analysis.” Psychological Bulletin 125 (3): 367.10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.367Search in Google Scholar
Cárdenas, J.-C., A. Dreber, E. Von Essen, and E. Ranehill. 2012. “Gender Differences in Competitiveness and Risk Taking: Comparing Children in Colombia and Sweden.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 83 (1): 11–23.10.1016/j.jebo.2011.06.008Search in Google Scholar
Charness, G., and U. Gneezy. 2012. “Strong Evidence for Gender Differences in Risk Taking.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 83 (1): 50–58.10.1016/j.jebo.2011.06.007Search in Google Scholar
Chein, J., D. Albert, L. O’Brien, K. Uckert, and L. Steinberg. 2011. “Peers Increase Adolescent Risk Taking by Enhancing Activity in the Brain’s Reward Circuitry.” Developmental Science 14 (2): F1–10.10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.01035.xSearch in Google Scholar
Cotton, C., F. McIntyre, and J. Price. 2013. “Gender Differences in Repeated Competition: Evidence from School Math Contests.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 86: 52–66.10.1016/j.jebo.2012.12.029Search in Google Scholar
Croson, R., and U. Gneezy. 2009. “Gender Differences in Preferences.” Journal of Economic Literature 47 (2): 448–74.10.1257/jel.47.2.448Search in Google Scholar
De Paola, M., F. Gioia, and V. Scoppa. 2015. “Are Females Scared of Competing with Males? Results from a Field Experiment.” Economics of Education Review 48: 117–28.10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.06.002Search in Google Scholar
Dreber, A., E. von Essen, and E. Ranehill. 2011. “Outrunning the Gender Gap - Boys and Girls Compete Equally.” Experimental Economics 14 (4): 567–82.10.1007/s10683-011-9282-8Search in Google Scholar
Dreber, A., E. von Essen, and E. Ranehill. 2014. “Gender and Competition in Adolescence: Task Matters.” Experimental Economics 17 (1): 154–72.10.1007/s10683-013-9361-0Search in Google Scholar
Eckel, C. C., and S. Füllbrunn. 2015. “Thar she Blows? Gender, Competition, and Bubbles in Experimental Asset Markets.” The American Economic Review 105 (2): 906–20.10.1257/aer.20130683Search in Google Scholar
Finucane, M. L., P. Slovic, C. K. Mertz, J. Flynn, and T. A. Satterfield. 2000. “Gender, Race, and Perceived Risk: The ’White Male’ effect.” Health, Risk & Society 2 (2): 159–72.10.1080/713670162Search in Google Scholar
Flory, J. A., A. Leibbrandt, and J. A. List. 2014. “Do Competitive Workplaces Deter Female Workers? A Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment on Job Entry Decisions.” The Review of Economic Studies 82 (1): 122–55.10.1093/restud/rdu030Search in Google Scholar
Furnham, A., and H. C. Boo. 2011. “A Literature Review of the Anchoring Effect.” Journal of Socio-Economics 40 (1): 35–42.10.1016/j.socec.2010.10.008Search in Google Scholar
Gardner, M., and L. Steinberg. 2005. “Peer Influence on Risk Taking, Risk Preference, and Risky Decision Making in Adolescence and Adulthood: An Experimental Study.” Developmental Psychology 41 (4): 625.10.1037/0012-1649.41.4.625Search in Google Scholar
Gneezy, U., K. L. Leonard, and J. A. List. 2009. “Gender Differences in Competition: Evidence from a Natrilineal and a Patriarchal Society.” Econometrica 77 (5): 1637–64.10.3386/w13727Search in Google Scholar
Gneezy, U., M. Niederle, and A. Rustichini. 2003. “Performance in Competitive Environments: Gender Differences.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 118 (3): 1049–74.10.1162/00335530360698496Search in Google Scholar
Gneezy, U., and A. Rustichini. 2004. “Gender and Competition at a Young Age.” American Economic Review Papers & Proceedings 94 (2): 377–81.10.1257/0002828041301821Search in Google Scholar
Gong, B., and C.-L. Yang. 2012. “Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes: Field Experiments on the Matrilineal Mosuo and the Patriarchal Yi.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 83 (1): 59–65.10.1016/j.jebo.2011.06.010Search in Google Scholar
Griffith, A. L. 2010. “Persistence of Women and Minorities in STEM Field Majors: Is it the School that Matters?” Economics of Education Review 29 (6): 911–22.10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.06.010Search in Google Scholar
Günther, C., N. A. Ekinci, C. Schwieren, and M. Strobel. 2010. “Women Can’t Jump? An Experiment on Competitive Attitudes and Stereotype Threat.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 75 (3): 395–401.10.1016/j.jebo.2010.05.003Search in Google Scholar
Healy, A., and J. Pate. 2011. “Can Teams Help to Close the Gender Competition Gap?” The Economic Journal 121 (555): 1192–204.10.1111/j.1468-0297.2010.02409.xSearch in Google Scholar
Iriberri, N., and P. Rey-Biel. 2017. “Stereotypes are Only a Threat when Beliefs are Reinforced: On the Sensitivity of Gender Differences in Performance Under Competition to Information Provision.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 135: 99–111.10.1016/j.jebo.2017.01.012Search in Google Scholar
Jeopardy!. 2015. “Show History.” Accessed: Sep 21, 2015. http://www.jeopardy.com/showguide/abouttheshow/showhistory/.Search in Google Scholar
Jetter, M., and J. K. Walker. 2017a. “Anchoring in Financial Decision-Making: Evidence from the Field.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 141: 164–76.10.2139/ssrn.2826985Search in Google Scholar
Jetter, M., and J. K. Walker 2017b. “The Gender of Your Opponents: Explaining the Gender Gap in Performance and Risk-Taking?” European Economic Review 109: 238–56.10.1016/j.euroecorev.2017.05.006Search in Google Scholar
Kahan, D. M., D. Braman, J. Gastil, P. Slovic, and C. Mertz. 2007. “Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White-Male Effect in Risk Perception.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 4 (3): 465–505.10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00097.xSearch in Google Scholar
Khachatryan, K., A. Dreber, E. Von Essen, and E. Ranehill. 2015. “Gender and Preferences at a Young age: Evidence from Armenia.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 118: 318–32.10.1016/j.jebo.2015.02.021Search in Google Scholar
Kleinjans, K. J. 2009. “Do Gender Differences in Preferences for Competition Matter for Occupational Expectations?” Journal of Economic Psychology 30 (5): 701–10.10.1016/j.joep.2009.03.006Search in Google Scholar
Le, A. T., P. W. Miller, W. S. Slutske, and N. G. Martin. 2011. “Attitudes Towards Economic Risk and the Gender Pay Gap.” Labour Economics 18 (4): 555–61.10.1016/j.labeco.2010.12.007Search in Google Scholar
Lindquist, G. S., and J. Säve-Söderbergh. 2011. ““Girls will be Girls", Especially Among Boys: Risk-Taking in the “Daily Double" on Jeopardy.” Economics Letters 112 (2): 158–60.10.1016/j.econlet.2011.04.010Search in Google Scholar
List, J. A. 2011. “Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies? The Case of Exogenous Market Experience.” The American Economic Review 101 (3): 313–17.10.3386/w16908Search in Google Scholar
Manning, A., and J. Swaffield. 2008. “The Gender Gap in Early-Career Wage Growth.” The Economic Journal 118 (530): 983–1024.10.1111/j.1468-0297.2008.02158.xSearch in Google Scholar
Montmarquette, C., K. Cannings, and S. Mahseredjian. 2002. “How do Young People Choose College Majors?” Economics of Education Review 21 (6): 543–56.10.1016/S0272-7757(01)00054-1Search in Google Scholar
Niederle, M., and L. Vesterlund. 2007. “Do Women Shy Away from Competition? Do Men Compete Too Much?” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 122 (3): 1067–101.10.3386/w11474Search in Google Scholar
Preston, A. E. 1994. “Why Have All the Women Gone? A Study of Exit of Women from the Science and Engineering Professions.” The American Economic Review 84 (5): 1446–62.Search in Google Scholar
Samak, A. C. 2013. “Is There a Gender Gap in Preschoolers’ Competitiveness? An Experiment in the US.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 92: 22–31.10.1016/j.jebo.2013.04.014Search in Google Scholar
Säve-Söderbergh, J., and G. S. Lindquist. 2017. “Children Do Not Behave Like Adults: Gender Gaps in Performance and Risk Taking in a Random Social Context in the High-Stakes Game Shows Jeopardy and Junior Jeopardy.” The Economic Journal 127 (603): 1665–92.10.1111/ecoj.12355Search in Google Scholar
Shurchkov, O. 2012. “Under Pressure: Gender Differences in Output Quality and Quantity Under Competition and Time Constraints.” Journal of the European Economic Association 10 (5): 1189–213.10.1111/j.1542-4774.2012.01084.xSearch in Google Scholar
Simons-Morton, B., N. Lerner, and J. Singer. 2005. “The Observed Effects of Teenage Passengers on the Risky Driving Behaviour of teenage drivers.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 37 (6): 973–82.10.1016/j.aap.2005.04.014Search in Google Scholar
Smith, J. 2013. “Peers, Pressure, and Performance at the National Spelling Bee.” Journal of Human Resources 48 (2): 265–85.10.1353/jhr.2013.0011Search in Google Scholar
Sutter, M., and D. Glätzle-Rützler. 2015. “Gender Differences in the Willingness to Compete Emerge Early in Life and Persist.” Management Science 61 (10): 2339–54.10.1287/mnsc.2014.1981Search in Google Scholar
Trebeck, A., and P. Barsocchini. 1990. The Jeopardy Book. New York: Harper Collins.Search in Google Scholar
Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1974. “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” Science 185 (4157): 1124–31.10.21236/AD0767426Search in Google Scholar
Vevea, B. 2014. “Students Vie for Jeopardy! Spot.” Badger Herald, April 4, 2008x.Search in Google Scholar
Yahr, E. 2014. “Jeopardy! Behind the Scenes: 7 Things I Learned Auditioning for America’s Favorite Quiz Show.” Washington Post, June 2, 2014.Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
