SundayReview | Opinion

Are Women Better Decision Makers?

By THERESE HUSTONOCT. 17, 2014

Photo

Credit JooHee Yoon

Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story Share This Page
 Email
 Share
 Tweet
 Save
  more

Continue reading the main story

>nbsp; — RECENTLY, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York said that if we want to
fix the gridlock in Congress, we need more women. Women are more focused on finding
common ground and collaborating, she argued. But there’s another reason that we’d
benefit from more women in positions of power, and it’s not about playing nicely.

Neuroscientists have uncovered evidence suggesting that, when the pressure is on,
women bring unique strengths to decision making.

Mara Mather, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Southern California, and

Nichole R. Lighthall, a cognitive neuroscientist now at Duke University, are two of the
many researchers who have found that under normal circumstances, when everything is
low-key and manageable, men and women make decisions about risk in similar ways. We
gather the best information we can, we weigh potential costs against potential gains, and
then we choose how to act. But add stress to the situation — replicated in the lab by
having participants submerge their hands in painfully cold, 35-degree water — and men
and women begin to part ways.

Dr. Mather and her team taught people a simple computer gambling game, in which they
got points for inflating digital balloons. The more they inflated each balloon, the greater
its value, and the risk of popping it. When they were relaxed, men and women took
similar risks and averaged a similar number of pumps. But after experiencing the cold
water, the stressed women stopped sooner, cashing out their winnings and going with the
more guaranteed win. Stressed men did just the opposite. They kept pumping — in one
study averaging about 50 percent more pumps than the women — and risking more. In
this experiment, the men’s risk-taking earned them more points. But that wasn’t always
the case.

In another experiment, researchers asked participants to draw cards from multiple decks,
some of which were safe, providing frequent small rewards, and others risky, with
infrequent but bigger rewards. They found that the most stressed men drew 21 percent
more cards from the risky decks than from the safe ones, compared to the most stressed
women, losing more over all.

Across a variety of gambles, the findings were the same: Men took more risks when they
were stressed. They became more focused on big wins, even when they were costly and
less likely.

Levels of the stress hormone cortisol appear to be a major factor, according to Ruud van
den Bos, a neurobiologist at Radboud University in the Netherlands. He and his
colleagues have found that the tendency to take more risks when under pressure is
stronger in men who experience a larger spike in cortisol. But in women he found that a
slight increase in cortisol seemed actually to improve decision-making performance.
Are we all aware when our decision making skews under stress? Unfortunately not. In a
2007 study, Stephanie D. Preston, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of
Michigan, and her colleagues told people that after 20 minutes, they would have to give a
talk and would be judged on their speaking abilities. But first, they had to play a
gambling game. Anxious, both men and women initially had a harder time making good
decisions in the game.

Continue reading the main story

Continue reading the main story

But the closer the women got to the stressful event, the better their decision making
became. Stressed women tended to make more advantageous decisions, looking for
smaller, surer successes. Not so for the stressed men. The closer the timer got to zero, the
more questionable the men’s decision making became, risking a lot for the slim chance of
a big achievement.

Continue reading the main story

41 Comments
Share your thoughts

Share your thoughts »

The men were also less aware that they had used a risky strategy. In the last few minutes
of the game, Dr. Preston interrupted each person immediately after he or she had just lost
money. She asked people to rate how risky each of their possible choices had been,
including the unsuccessful one they had just made. Women were more likely to rate their
losing strategy as a poor one.

In one interesting study, a team led by Livia Tomova and Claus Lamm, of the University
of Vienna, found through three experiments that under stressful conditions, women
became more attuned to others. In one, people reached through a curtain and touched
something pleasant, like a feather or a cotton ball, or something unpleasant, like a slimy
mushroom or a plastic slug. Each person could see a picture of what he or she was
touching, and what another person was touching a few feet away, and had to rate the
pleasantness of their respective experiences. Typically, people merge the other person’s
experience with their own — if I’m touching something pleasant, then I’ll rate your slug-
touching experience as nicer than I ordinarily would.

WHEN women were stressed, however, from having to give a public speech, they
actually found it easier than usual to empathize and take the other person’s perspective.
Just the opposite happened for the stressed men — they became more egocentric. If I’m
stroking a piece of silk, that cow tongue you’re touching can’t be all that bad.

Continue reading the main story

Recent Comments
Prof.Jai Prakash Sharma,
6 minutes ago

Even then most of the organizations, private or public, don't pay full due, be it perks or
position, deserved by women. That again is risky...

Nancy
2 hours ago

I don't know what to make of such research because we don't know whether "men" and
"women" are intrinsically different in their behaviors,...

EB
2 hours ago

I happen to believe that there are indeed neurobiologically-based differences between the
sexes ON AVERAGE. There is also an enormous amount...

 See All Comments

 Write a comment

Of course, just because it works this way in a lab doesn’t mean the same thing happens in
the messy real world. Do organizations with women in charge actually make less risky
and more empathetic decisions in stressful circumstances?

Some evidence suggests they do. Credit Suisse examined almost 2,400 global
corporations from 2005 to 2011 — including the years directly preceding and following
the financial crisis — and found that large-cap companies with at least one woman on
their boards outperformed comparable companies with all-male boards by 26 percent.

Some might assume that there was a cost to this as well, that boards with women must
have been excessively cautious before the financial crisis of 2008, as was the case with
the balloon experiment. Not so. From 2005 to 2007, Credit Suisse also found, the stock
performance of companies with women on their boards essentially matched performance
of companies with all-male boards. Nothing lost, but much gained.

If we want our organizations to make the best decisions, we need to notice who is
deciding and how tightly they’re gritting their teeth.
Unfortunately, what often happens is that women are asked to lead only during periods of
intense stress. It’s called the glass cliff, a phenomenon first observed by the University of
Exeter professors Michelle K. Ryan and Alex Haslam, who is now at the University of
Queensland, in which highly qualified women are asked to lead organizations only in
times of crisis. Think of Mary T. Barra at General Motors and Marissa Mayer at Yahoo,
who were both brought in only after things had begun to fall apart. If more women were
key decision makers, perhaps organizations could respond effectively to small stresses,
rather than letting them escalate into huge ones.

We can’t make the big jobs in government or business any less stressful. But we can
ensure that when the pressure rises, there’s a better balance between taking big risks and
making real progress.

A cognitive psychologist at Seattle University who is working on a book about women

and decision making.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on October 19, 2014, on page SR9 of the
National edition with the headline: Are Women Better Decision Makers? . Order
Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/opinion/sunday/are-women-better-decision-
makers.html?
contentCollection=opinion&action=click&module=NextInCollection&region=Footer&p
gtype=article

Prof.Jai Prakash Sharma,

is a trusted commenter Jaipur, India. 9 minutes ago

Even then most of the organizations, private or public, don't pay full due, be it perks or
position, deserved by women. That again is risky male chauvinism.

 Reply
 Recommend

Nancy

New York 2 hours ago

I don't know what to make of such research because we don't know whether "men" and
"women" are intrinsically different in their behaviors, or whether it is how they are raised
that makes them behave differently. So this research just keeps reinforcing stereotypes -
which is for sure a VERY BAD thing. The range within a single gender is greater than
the range between them.

But the one GOOD thing it does argue for - for the zillionth time - is why you need a
truly diverse collection of people to solve problems - not people who all look just like
me. What we really need is research to tell us why this message still isn't getting through!

 Reply
 8Recommend

EB

AZ 2 hours ago

I happen to believe that there are indeed neurobiologically-based differences between the
sexes ON AVERAGE. There is also an enormous amount of individual variation, so that
you can't choose people for a given task based on gender. At the same time, you can't
look at the aggregate differences between the two groups as strictly due to societal
conditioning.

That said, this piece is at least as interesting for the light it casts on politically-correct
discourse as it is for its content. A study which had suggested that "Men bring unique
strengths to decision-making" would not have been explained in terms of
neurotransmitters, but entirely in terms of "societal expectations" and differential
conditioning of boys and girls.

And of course that would go double for a study which showed "Women bring unique
strengths to nurturance." That particular strength is one that we have to run from for the
pathetic reason that it isn't valued by the market and doesn't help us reach the holy grail
of getting as much from our employers -- and giving as much of ourselves to our
employers across a lifetime -- as the typical male.

 Reply
 3Recommend

Romy

NYC 2 hours ago

It's remarkable how defensive so many of these comments from men are -- even,
downright angry. It seems this has hit a nerve among your male readers. After all, look
our many failed institutions today (and I'm not just talking about profit -- ethics, fraud,
etc. e.g.). No wonder they are reactionary.
Shifting the conversation to whether or not Kristen Gillibrand has the right to say what
she thinks or turning to the crisis of Ebola is diversionary to say the least.
  Reply
 3Recommend

Glassyeyed

Indiana 2 hours ago

I'm all for women (and minorities) being included in all types of decision-making
because broadening the collective point of view tends to improve the process. But it
always makes me a little nervous when we start talking about one gender (or race or
culture) being "better" at some specific activity. We are all individuals, and stereotypes
predicting abilities based on gender (or race or culture) limit decision-making rather than
improving it.

 Reply
 4Recommend

EKB

Mexico 2 hours ago

The trouble with the experiments mentioned in these studies is that they take place in
studies. And indeed, no statistics are even given to tell what percente of men and what
percentage of women reacted according to your descriptions, and there are no indications
of the variables and the variables are not the same from study to study. Also, the findings
are all over the map, and the same characteristics are not always studied. In real life,the
Credit Suisse study is hardly definitive since it may be examining a large number of
global corporations, but doesn't ask any meaningful questions aside from sex of
participants. What other factors might be important, for instance, beliefs and education:
how do men react who are college-educated, how do their jobs affect their risk-taking? If
they are fathers and mothers, if they are in risky professions, etc. etc. These studies really
say so very little, and they are often not really well designed. Yet people act as if
neuroscience is the Holy Grail of understanding human behavior. Hardly.

 Reply
 3Recommend

Andrew Elliott

Northampton MA 2 hours ago

It has already been noted that decisions are situational, with nothing more than anecdotal
evidence that either the rational or intuitive means of deciding is superior.
The "differences" between men and women, which are more part of a circle than a
straight line, have conditioned men to act and women to hesitate. Not surprisingly, each
side claims theirs is the more correct, but there is no real evidence for this because of the
first point, decisions are situational.
The real solution lies in balancing ones conditioned responses with the virtues of its
opposite. In doing this, it is important to be aware of how we are out of balance and go in
the opposite directions. This involves men becoming more like the stereotype of women
and vice versa.
The better decision maker is one who has learned to balance these qualities which are
falsely portrayed as limited to gender, and this is independent of how one is born.

 Reply
 1Recommend

LS

Maine 2 hours ago

There is a place for both kinds of responses and decision-making styles. Unfortunately,
until relatively recently in human history, only one style has been deemed valid.

The kind that doesn't read instructions or ask directions......:)

 Reply
 2Recommend

Dallee

Clearwater, Florida 2 hours ago

Yes, women can be great decision makers -- if they are given the chance to do so.

To get to an even playing field, we must recognize that cultural biases do exist, big time.
We do have data on how the same person is treated at work after a sex change. See the
report on the transgender experience here:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119239/transgender-people-can-explain...

No surprise. No ERA. No equal pay legislation. More restrictions on a woman's ability to

obtain birth control, low-cost healthcare, and to make her own choice on motherhood and
her own ability to assure a child a decent life. All of these choices made by bodies with a
majority of men.

It would be great to see our society do better by women. Studies like this support the
concept that women deserve at least an equal place at the decision-making table.

 Reply
 3Recommend

Tim
Kingston, NY 2 hours ago

Place this article right next to the one from a few months ago titled "Women Pace
Themselves in Marathons Better Than Men". No, no, they dont. Men run faster times
every marathon, women run slower times but steadier paces. Sad that journalistic
standards at the NYT have sunk so low. As another poster has pointed out, any study that
even hints at male superiority would be shouted down as sexist and chauvinistic, and
likely not published. Why do feminist authors make fools of themselves trying to prove
the pre-eminence of women by cherry picking data from poorly designed studies? Isnt
this strong evidence of an actual inferiority complex? Real, strong, powerful PEOPLE
dont resort to this tactic because they dont have to.

 Reply
 4Recommend

ML

Princeton, N.J. 2 hours ago

While I doubt that the gender differences have a significant impact in the boardroom, I
have seen their evolutionary basis in action. In a bizarre twist of fate my husband and I
were attacked by a bighorn sheep while hiking. My husband immediately stepped
forward to confront the (MUCH bigger) animal while I stepped back. This was pure
instinct, no thought involved.

Surprisingly, my husband was able to stare down the ram. I would say he took the greater
risk under stress. There was recently a report in the NYT of a young boy attacked by a
mountain lion. The report said the lion was beaten off by the two adult males in the
hiking group. There are times when we revert to our most basic instincts and I would
argue that at those times the difference between the genders is at its greatest. Not sure
that these differences are at all apparent absent the presence of a large threatening beast,
though that may be an apt description of some businessmen.

 Reply
 1Recommend

Albert Anton

Canada 2 hours ago

Can one posit a reason for natural selection to call for this difference in traits? Perhaps
only males who were willing to take a big risk were able to survive the sabre tooth tiger
attacks. These survivors were more successful at getting their genes into the next
generation. And we are left with this programing even though it may not be as
advantagious in our current social circumstances in every instance.
Perhaps women are better equiped for survival now. This is sort of confirmed in a way by
how female chief executives are sometimes the only ones left standing in beaten down
corporations like the ones mentioned in this artical.

 Reply
 Recommend

Garrett

PA 2 hours ago

I wonder if the study had concluded "Women can't be trusted to make big decisions,
because they're too emotional" whether it would have gotten the same coverage?

This, in my view, is just so much sweeping generalization that in the final analysis
promotes the kind of prejudiced thinking the researchers are probably not OK with.

The question, really is, "What sorts of people perform better under stress?" rather than
"Which gender performs better under stress?" since the variables are so many for each
person as to make any clear conclusions from the latter illusory.

 Reply
 3Recommend

Josh Hill

is a trusted commenter
3 hours ago

Talk about politically correct nonsense! Yes, men are more inclined than women to take
risks. Yes, women tend to seek accommodaton and the support of others when under
strees. This has long been known. What is ridiculous is the attempt to take this as
evidence of some kind of innate female superiority. It is, after all, risk taking that took us
to the moon. It is risk taking that led two young men to start Apple in a garage.

Male and famale attitudes towards risk and competition evolved on the savannah and
before we were even human -- observe the strongly sex-linked risk-taking behavior of
other mammals. Each has its place in modern life, determining to some extent the
activities for which the genders are, on average, best suited.

So by all means investigate -- but please, spare us the fantasy-elevation of women into a
position of hypothetical superiority on the basis of studies that demonstrate little beyond
the wishful thinking of those who interpret them.
  Reply
 7Recommend

Doug

San Francisco 3 hours ago

Silly stuff wrapping itself in the cloak of research.

 Reply
 7Recommend

EGM

New City NY 3 hours ago

somehow, not surprising.

when catastrophe occurs, who is, in the end, the responsible party that mops up the mess?
who more often gets 'stuck' with the kids? the elderly parents ? who has to calculate how
to spend and measure and distribute meager resources in nearly every single society on
the planet throughout history?
who is the money going to now in micro-businesses in third world countries, because it
works, its productive?

 Reply
 3Recommend

Onno Frowein

Noordwijk, The Netherlands 3 hours ago

I was born in 1937 and my Mother was divorced stuck with 3 children and she got us
through the war and feeding us sometimes with flower bulbs. After the war she was a full
time mother interested and supporting us in our education and sporting events. She lived
through hell and faced as a divorced woman a great deal of hostilities from family and so-
called friends. She was a strong woman who at the age of 97 was still fighting for her life.

Now I am reading this 'story about women being better decision makers' written by
women and for women, its a joke. Women make decisions impulsively and sometimes
they make the right one. Let's further see that women graduates in the exact sciences such
as mathematics, physics or even accounting are very slim. They like to graduate in
'talking' sciences such lawyers and teachers. And female leaders have proven that they
can talk but cannot make decisions that's what politics is all about, Merkel excels, so is
Lagarde from IMF, but Argentina President Kirchner showed at the recent UN meeting
that she has compassion and showed courage against USA and its judges and Hedge
Funds vultures.
I grew up in a time were secretaries and coffee ladies were the women in the company
most appreciated. Now feminism has entered the corporate and public world the planet
has NOT become a better place either. In boardrooms meetings I only experienced a great
deal of more talking and less decision making when women are present
Ever went shopping with a woman?

 Reply
 1Recommend

Elliot Shimon

NYC 3 hours ago

You know there is strong evidence that a large minority of women are negatively
cognitively impacted during their periods.

Of course - that research must be "sexist" and a product of the Patriarchal paradigm,
whereas this author's conclusions are both above reproach and a breath of fresh air.

The genders are equal, it seems, and all gender differences are merely "cultural" - except
of course for those indications suggesting women are more compassionate, wise, or
human than men.

Good grief, this is phrenology with better equipment.

 Reply
 11Recommend

Fred Klug

Nashville, IL 3 hours ago

A very interesting article and interesting research. HT makes a very valid point about
generalizing the results of lab experiments to real life situations.

I also find it curious that there are only two comments to this article while there were
over 1000 to yesterday's story on Ebola. The difference in numbers is understandable
given the threat of Ebola, but curious that the general interest is not wider.

 Reply
 1Recommend

james hadley

providence, ri 3 hours ago

Why can't this society just acknowledge the real facts here. Decisions involve intellect.
More complicated decisions require greater intellect. And, alas, intellect is simply not
valued in our present society, largely because the decision-makers who are most
influential have so little.
Look at any contemporary problem, containment of Ebola, for example. Botch followed
botch, starting at the top, especially at the CDC, where insufficient real help was
provided to the Dallas Presbyterian Hospital faced with the problem. Or the ignition key
foul-up at GM.
And we all know about Bush and Cheney, and the mess in the middle east that they
created. And Colin Powell's famous statement about owning it after you break it -
showing him as one of the few who even began to grasp the magnitude of the badly
conceived and managed job emerging there.

Only major crises eventually get the proper intellectual attention that is required to
manage them. The military that emerged from WWII had a command structure that had
been honed - and attenuated - by the demands of the war. The entire history of this
process of dropping the ineffective and promoting the demonstrably effective should be
examined by curious academics like the ones writing here. Forget the ice-cold water and
let's see what really works in our world. It's not like we have tons of time; the globe is
warming, I can feel that quite clearly today, just as well as any woman can.

 Reply
 1Recommend

Steve

California 3 hours ago

Ignoring the obvious point that decision-making is situational - sometimes it pays to build
a consensus - sometimes it pays to be autocratic - whether under pressure or not.
See especially President Obama and the Ebola crisis

btw,,,"Credit Suisse examined almost 2,400 global corporations from 2005 to 2011" - this
study is a paradigm of correlative analysis masquerading as causation - it appears to be
mocked everywhere except for the Grey Lady

 Reply
 4Recommend

Don Salmon

Asheville, NC 3 hours ago

I'm working on a website on neuroscience and meditation, and even I agree with HT -
this kind of research is why so many people are starting to talk about neuro-nonsense (see
Andrew Ferguson in - yes, progressives - the Weekly Standard).

Please researchers, start paying attention. You need to find some way to work with
journalists to tell them to be MUCH more cautious in drawing sweeping conclusions
from minor research studies.

 Reply
 9Recommend

Eric

New Jersey 3 hours ago

Imagine the uproar if Rand Paul said we need more men in Congress. But, Kirsten
Gillibrand gets a pass as always.

She is an incredible hypocrite. As an upstate NY Congresswoman, she claimed to be and

acted like a moderate. As soon as she got to the Senate, she went to the left of Charles
Schumer which is quite an accomplishment.

She is the reason you can never trust a Democrat who claims to be a moderate. It's just a
trick to fool the voters.

 Reply
 1Recommend
jamess

Portland, ME -- Switzerland 3 hours ago

There is an aspect of this study that seems absent yet interests me greatly, and that has to
do with degrees of stress and the potential need for greater risk. What I mean is that as
stress increases in the real world doesn't it warrant greater risk taking? If what is causing
stress is indeed a legitimate threat and is a threat that is out of the norm, doesn't the
attempt to remove the threat require more risk. The banking example is intriguing on its
surface, but their are so many unanswered questions for that one instance, and I repeat,
"one instance."

 Reply
 Recommend

Ulrich

Hamburg, Germany 3 hours ago

“They cried like a wench…“ wrote a sailor in a letter home after the battle of Trafalgar.
Sailors and soldiers of Admiral Nelson´s battle ship mourned the death of their
commander, Admiral Nelson, who got fatally wounded during the battle. They loved
their commander because he loved them.
In our culture love is considered a female trait. Whereas, being tough and daring are
considered to be male qualities. The essence of leadership is the responsibility for people.
That is why successful leadership is not about women or men being in charge but about
human competences, love being the strongest one. We need more female traits in leaders.
Perhaps there would be less wars, crises, and catastrophes if there were. British author
Norman Dixon makes this argument among others in his book “On the psychology of
military incompetence”. Here is an intro.
http://www.english.kamus-quantum.com/15.html

 Reply
 Recommend

DTB

Greensboro, NC 3 hours ago

What if the study had turned out opposite how it did? Would USC had published it?
Would the Times have printed it? Or would all and sundry have condemned it for
perpetuating stereotypes?

How does Kirsten Gillibrand know electing more women to Congress would change the
institution? Isn't she just buying into a stereotype of women as collaborators? And doesn't
that stereotype make it more difficult for women whose own personal management style
does not tend towards collaboration?

As society moves forward and away from defining people by demographics we can't just
pick and choose positive stereotypes to replace the old ones. A stereotype is just that,
whether it favors or holds back a group.

 Reply
 1Recommend

Josh Hill

is a trusted commenter
2 hours ago

A huge body of evidence says that women tend to be collaborators. The key word being
"tend," there are some men who prefer to collaborate, some women who prefer to
compete. I'm not sure why people can't grasp these very simple concepts: picture two
offset bell cures, with overlap.

 Reply
 Recommend

J Burkett

Austin, TX 3 hours ago

I am reminded of the remark made famous by Margaret Thatcher, "If you want something
said, ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman."

As to decision making and risk taking, an observation I read not long ago comes to mind:
All too often, men are driven by a need to prove they're men. Women, unencumbered by
such needs, simply tackle the task at hand.

 Reply
 13Recommend
NYT Pick

Peter Kriens

France 3 hours ago

I understand that the research shows that women become risk averse men tend to take
more risk. What I do not understand is the conclusion that women are therefore better
decision makers? The only limited research at Credit Suisse shows that mixed boards
perform better at large public traded companies, at least since 2005.

In nature risk taking pays off for the species (often not for the individual) because new
venues are found and dead ends escaped. It seems therefore quite arrogant and sexist to
conclude that women are better based on the given facts. If our species had been only
been risk averse we'd still been living in caves. If we'd only been taking risks we'd been
long extinct. I think its the mix that makes it anti-fragile. And so interesting.

 Reply
 6Recommend

manfred marcus

Bolivia 3 hours ago

We thought so intuitively, now we know rationally; are we going to proceed,

accordingly?

 Reply
 Recommend

Keon Yeong Kim

Seoul, South Korea 3 hours ago

Decision making is influenced by factors on different levels: On the personal level,

intelligence, background information, recognition of magtitude of state of affairs,
calulations of political gains.; On the group level, vested interests the group of a decision-
maker has, rivalry with other groups, power dynamics with the very group; On the
structual level, uncertainty from asymmetric infomation, anarchy with no central
authorities.

Given these wide-ranging factors are involved in decision-making--not to speak of

hugely varing differences in personal charaters within one sex, the generalization
statement that men are ususally risk-takers while women are averse to risks offer few
implications on how we can better deal with conflicts.
Describing men as having the more tendency of risk-taking only fuels gender
confrontation, instead of helping tackles any discriminatory practices by gender.

Occasionally men's risk taking penchant is cast in the negative light, it can be also
depicted as audacious and resolute in emergency situations.

And the mentioned gender difference may be the result of socialization, meaning men
and women are not that significantly divergent in character.

Thus, we need to try to change deeply ingrained gender stereotypes, and the general
characterization will not help women empowerment.

 Reply
 Recommend

JettReynke

State College, PA 3 hours ago

My parent and I watched sports together. Once I complained about a famous announcer
who got on my nerves and the parent said, "Well, they have to say 'something.'" Yeah,
but, I thought, they don't have to be obnoxious. But to the parent's reply, this article
reminds me that writers have to write, no matter what.
Under some circumstances women are vastly better deciders, under some circumstances,
you'd only choose a man. Yawn.

 Reply
 Recommend

Cheryl

is a trusted commenter
3 hours ago

It's just a beginning, and as researchers learn more about our brains workings, we'll pick
up information that one group or another will not want to hear. I suspect that the women's
tendency to take less chances might also be a reason for not being more "assertive" in
business - altho we sure do know also that what's seen as being "take charge" and
'decisive' in males is attacked in women as controlling, and that acting empathetically is
viewed as weak - often by other women as much as by men. Damned if you do... and that
won't change even with knowledge.
  Reply
 1Recommend

Josh Hill

is a trusted commenter
3 hours ago

All true, but I would ask -- what is so important about being what we aren't? We seem to
have made a value judgment that the male way of doing things is superior, and we either
encourage women to do what for many comes unnaturally or is socially sanctioned, or as
in the case of this article, claim that the female way of doing things is superior in
situations in which there is no real evidence that it is. Why can't we simply accept that the
genders evolved to complement one another? That the prudence and compassion to which
this article refers are just as valuable as male risk taking, and that each has its place? And
that we are individuals, meaning that there are women who feel comfortable balancing on
an I-beam 100 feet off the ground and men who prefer occupations that are predictable
and safe, and that we should be encouraged to follow our individual affinities rather than
being sorted according to gender?

 Reply
 1Recommend

HT

is a trusted commenter Ohio 4 hours ago

I really hate this kind of research. Start with a small sample of a homogenous group of
people (such as college students at an American university), run a few inexpensive
psychological experiments on them, focus on the average difference between men and
women -- completely ignoring differences within the groups -- and then make sweeping
claims about the differences between men & women regardless of age, education, culture,
experience, socioeconomic level, etc.

How men and women in positions of power behave under stress cannot be understood by
looking at the average response of a college student. CEOs, politicians, generals,
surgeons, etc are not selected at random from the general population, but are chosen via a
lengthy screening process that assessed how they, as individuals, made decisions when
under stress. They will respond to stress differently than the _average_ person of the
same gender.
The answer to "who should lead during times of stress?" should be "someone who has
demonstrated that they keep their cool in difficult situations," and not "a woman, because
women, on average, take fewer risks in stressful situations."

When these results make women look good, some women will crow about it, because
they think it undermines stereotypes of men and women. They miss that by focussing on
average differences, these studies reinforce the most pernicious stereotype of all -- that
the talents and behavior of an individual woman is determined by her gender.

 Reply
 18Recommend

Bos

is a trusted commenter Boston 7 hours ago

Why can men and women make decision together? True, rule by committee is no bargain
either. And when it comes down to tie breaker, one person may have to decide. But if we
are talking about an ideal state, neither men nor women can exist by themselves. While
sexual politics in every arena right now is unfavorable to women due to age old prejudice
built-in, the remedy is not to swing to the other extreme. Instead, let's reason, fairness and
compassion rule

 Reply
 1Recommend

A.J.

France 3 hours ago

thems who got da power, rule! (and because of their cortisol levels, think their decision is
always better)

 Reply
 Recommend
41 Comments
Share your thoughts

 All  41
 Readers’ Picks  20
 NYT Picks  1