E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
When women play against men in "Jeopardy," they switch to more conservative wagering.
Let's try a "Jeopardy"-style quiz: "When women bet against men, they're more likely to be this."
If you want to win, your question would be, “What is cautious?”
That's the finding of a new study just published in the online version of “Economics Letters," which was conducted by economists Gabriella Lindquist and Jenny Save-Soderbergh of the Swedish Institute for Social Research. Recent studies done in test situations have shown that all things being equal, gender often does make a difference in gambling situations.
But Lindquist and Save-Soderbergh wanted to see what happens in a real situation. So they turned to 206 archived editions of Swedish Jeopardy -- no hapless grad students or volunteers needed.
In both Swedish and American Jeopardy, the first person to come up with the right question for the previous answer gets the dollar value assigned to that answer, at least temporarily, and gets to pick the next one. Hidden on the game board is the “Daily Double.” The contestant who picks the Daily Double gets to wager some or all of his or her earnings on the next answer. You can double your money, or get less, depending on your initial wager.
“The wagering decision should not be affected by the gender of the opponent,” Lindquist and Save-Soderbergh say. But it was. Women playing against two men wagered 25 percent less of their accumulated earnings than when they played against a mixed group or two women.
“We were not surprised by our result,” says Lindquist, who suspects she’d find the same thing if she analyzed past episodes of the American version of Jeopardy. (Just for a taste of Swedish Jeopardy, categories in the past have included “Famous Anderssons,” and one final Jeopardy question was “Hiking trail between Abisko and Hemavan.” )
The difference, she says, may be one explanation for the glass ceiling, but she doubts it is the only one.
As far as the game went, the difference in behavior didn’t matter much. The researchers report “no systematic gender differences in performance.” Next up? Lindquist wants to study Swedish kids playing a children’s version of Jeopardy, to see if the gender difference starts young.
Want more weird health news? Find The Body Odd on Facebook.
Leave a Comment:
My husband and i have similiar IQ's we both graduated top at the University and are well respected in our careers.....he beats me 90% of the time at Jeopardy. His instant recall is much quicker than mine---however, the man cannot multi task to save his life or rememeber names of our neighbors, or understand what makes art wonderful. He can't even run to the store and remember everything I asked for....it drives me and the kids crazy. The kids would starve if something happened to me. Overall I think I would rather live with my brain than his--but his instant recall is handy with phone numbers----especially pizza take out.
I'll take that a step further. I'm not degreed. My wife is a super intelligent Chemical Engineer with a degree with honors. I can run the board in Jeopardy, while she's still thinking of the answer to the first question. What the statisticians shouldve show as well was the vast number of men that win compared to women, and the average final totals of men vs women. And it all has nothing to do with men being smarter than women. I have no facts to back it, but it's my perception that men are better at trivial knowledge and the ability to recall that faster. Also unsubstantiated, women may be better longer term solutions, planning, and organization. Also, there are exceptions to both rules, just to cover all of the people who will scream at my perceptions.
I think I may have seen a few Jeopardy once maybe 15 years ago. So, I have no idea what you all are talking about.
Then grump, why are you commenting?
Evan, I am commenting because I am surprised, sometimes, to learn how little I know of popular culture. I don't watch TV much. Now if this was about Dr. Who, or Lost, I would be all over it.
I don't get out much.
Cygnus, you're missing the point. The issue being studied was not who does better on Jeopardy! It was what is the style of play used. It found that when women were given the option to risk their money, they were more cautious when their competition was two men than when there were two women or one woman and one man.
Now, there will be effects based on how much money you have: If you're running away with the game, you may not bet much on the Double Jeopardy clues because you don't want to wreck your lead should you get it wrong, for example. Final scores have no bearing on the case.
And if what you say is true, then a woman facing two men should be inclined to bet more since she will more likely be behind when they find a Double Jeopardy and will need that boost to catch up. But if so, why would they be more cautious against two men? Especially compared to one man and one woman?
I can't tell you how many times I've had to use the phrase "wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey" in conversations since I first heard the 10th Doctor say it.
Grump - you live in NM? And you don't get out much? You live in one of the most beautiful places on earth - get out! And catch a couple 'Jeopardy' - they're great fun.
rainlady2, I was making a little joke. I mean "I don't get out much" in terms of popular culture. I would much rather sit in the hot springs in Jemez or hike in the Gila (hot springs there. too) than watch Jeopardy. But, that's just me.
Halifax, I am such a tightwad that I am only willing to spring for Netflix. It is f**king killing my grandsons and me that we can't watch the current season of Dr. Who. I won't get cable because it is just a bunch of tv stations from other places that nobody from there watches either. I am sure the only thing we would watch is the Dr. and Torchwood. You know what I mean since it is a wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey sort of thing.
I love Jeopardy - watch it (almost) everyday, and do very well. However, I have realized (doing my own study), that there is a vast between knowing "facts" and being smart. My husband cannot answer most of the Jeopardy questions, but he is very smart. I came to the realization that knowing those answers are fun but not really all that helpful in real life. Perhaps I need to seek a better balance?
Ok, so I take it your "wife" is actually a man and you are a homosexual, correct? There is no such thing as a super intelligent woman unless she is a man, and you disgust me with those liberal ideas. I have never met a woman that is smarter than me and never will.
Wow. This is Davisson's first post on a new Newsvine account. He must have been banned and is now back again with a new account. I can see why he was banned. Ha, ha. Sally or Tyler will have you before too long. Actually, I hope it's Sally, the noble and wise goddess, who does it.
I think Davisson's comment may have been satirical. We can only hope, because it gave me a good chuckle. If it was serious, then congrats on throwing politics into a vine about an article that has nothing to do with politics. Your mother must be so proud.
This would be a far more interesting article if it gave us a clue as to what their findings were as to WHY this happens. Is the woman intimidated? Or, is she being wiser by not blowing the game on a single question? Did it vary depending on whether the woman was trailing or was leading the game?
I've often wondered if the host (Alex Trebek) and his interactions with the players has any bearing on the "intimidation factor". Mr. Trebek is often over-solicitous to women calling them "young lady" or sounding surprised when they are knowledgeable in traditionally male categories. He never acts that way towards male contestants and seems to view their participation and knowledge as simply matter-of-fact. This behaviour would certainly seem to play into any contestants wagering and nervousness.
I think you're on to something here...
I used to be an avid Jeopardy fan and nearly made it on the show's college version 5 years ago. However, during one college season, Trebeck put down a female contestant who said she wanted to be a professional music critic when she graduated; while his responses are usually of the "Good for you!" nature, he told this aspiring journalist, "Oh, so you mean like a groupie?"
Obviously, it was for cheap laughs, but the girl looked visibly upset. As someone who is a professional arts journalist -- and yes, that means music, too! -- I was very offended a lost a lot of respect for the show and its overt dehumanization of women contestants.
The correct finding (as reported) is that "Swedish woman are likely to bet less when opponents are Swedish men or a mix of Swedish men and women on Jeopardy." The generalization that the finding applies to all nationalities in all situations is not consistent with a science-based study. Further studies would have to duplicate this one (Swedish women vs. Swedish men and mixed groups) in other gambing situations (perhaps regional or even multi-national poker tournaments) to give stronger evidence to any hypothesized finding. Then if larger studies in various "gambling" situations among many cultural and national groups reflected similar results - then one might conclude that women are likely to bet less when opponents are men. To move on to a new study, based on "conclusions" with this single study, but with children as test subjects in gambling situations, seems too far a leap and any resulting findings could take the researchers further down a possibly mistaken path
One study is a great start and establishes a sound hypothesis, but it doesn't offer anything conclusive except to beg further studies among a broader group of adults.
Bill, I think women are naturally more cautious than men in many things, probably gender based as women tend to be the care givers, therefore keeping what they have versus betting it all. Women tend to drive more conservatively, tend to partake in dangerous sports less, though some do--race car driving, mountain climbing, combat, etc. I bet as more research is done, it will come down to the difference between estrogen and testosterone.
I was concerned about the science - not the hypothesis. The conclusion that women are more cautious bettors than men may very well be true, but this is only one study of a group already fairly well drawn from the genreal population. I attended a Jeopardy audition once. The first group of the auditioners was very large (200-300), then as more "answers" were offered the group thinned out considerably. I was one of about 8 people left and the person chosen by the program was based on qualities other than best responses, they needed a "type" of person they wanted on the show. It was fun none-the-less. They were particularly looking for women and more minorities. I recognized that it was a "show" that needed to have a wide audience so I didn't feel bad that I was likely excluded because I was white and male. The overwhelming number of people that attended the audition were just like me. This may be more of a cultural attribute - engaging in challenges (like you mention), but the finding offered by the article imply the results are of a specific kind of risk taking (gambling) and not a general attribute of women vs. men.
intelligence is only useful if you can make it work. like make money, cross the street correctly, and so on. reminds me of the so-called "prodigy" asian girl who decided to hop on a bike, then ride against the red light and against oncoming traffic, with headphones on and no helmet. she got hit and died on the spot just 10 days ago in NYC. too bad her 1600 SAT scores couldn't help her on the street or in using common sense. and lastly, the way women wager may be dependent on their own culture and how they are raised and or if they come from a poor family or routinely see mom/pop or family members take risks in life. a woman like paris hilton may risk it all because she is a daddy's girl with sugar daddy caramel pops in her mouth, win or lose. a girl who worked waiting tables to get herself a career by studying is far less likely to take huge risks. there is too much to consider before drawing conclusions.
The contestants on "Jeopardy" are pre-tested and must prove their ability before they even make the show. They have already demonstrated their intelligence. I have watched the show for years and don't recall a single, "daddy's girl" (what a cliche?!) contestant!
Wow I'm so glad we got that cleared up.
This research is no surprise. I could have told you that there are mostly male gamblers not females. BTW In the second paragraph: If you wan to win, your question would be, “What is cautious?” Should be WANT with a t! Way to write an article. Stay away from Jeopardy.
I think the one of the reasons women may bet less than men might be dependant on what catagory the daily doubles are found in and what the subject of the final answer is. If a woman got a daily double in a catagory like sports stats or cars and she doesn't know much about that subject then she might not wager much, but if was in a catagory she knew a lot about and felt competent and comfortable with then she might wager more. Same with the final catagory.
I remember one episode of Jeopardy a long time ago. A man jokingly said that he would start Double Jeopardy with the category "Sports" since his two opponents were women. The two ladies proceeded to take turns running the column. He didn't answer a single clue in the category.
I was watching an episode of Jeopardy about a week ago (other dedicated Jeopardy watchers might remember it). A woman was ahead with just two clues left in Double Jeopardy. Turns out both clues were the two remaining Daily Doubles for the round. She had a fairly sizable lead, and could of bet enough on either one, or on a combination of both to get her score over double her next closest competitor. Both questions turned out to be fairly simple (my brother and I both knew the answers) but she wagered so conservatively that she didn't increase her score enough to make it so the guy in second place couldn't catch her. My brother, being the person he is, was practically screaming at the TV saying how stupid that was and that she potentially gave them a chance to still win.
In fact, it was really dumb, because after she got the first Daily Double right, she then got the second daily double, and could of bet enough to have her score be over double of second place AND even if she had got the question wrong, she still would of been ahead going into the final, and in the best position to win. Because of her stupid betting, she didn't get to double her opponents scores, despite the fact she got BOTH clues right. Both the male contestants ended up knowing the correct Final Jeopardy answer and she didn't, so she ended up losing, only because of stupid betting on Daily Doubles in the Double Jeopardy round.
So yeah, I guess I can see where they are going with this article...
Nexus, I agree with you that it all depends on the category. I'm good with topics like religion or history. While my husband is good with science and sports.
I always loved Jeopardy. No matter how smart we may be, Jeopardy is sure to let you know how Stupid you really are.
I believe this would be difficult to study. The catagory difficulty as perceived by the player bares most of the thought behind making a wager. If a player feels it could be a tough question they will wager less no matter what the gender.
I also believe that the position the player is in whether winning or losing plays a part on how much a person may wager. So can a study truly make a statement that women will bet less than a man would. There are just to many variables: personality of the player being a major one as well. So I think not.