Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment with Microfinance Clients
5. Discussion and findings from the focus group discussions
In the previous section, we saw that group composition might be very important for cooperation and decision making in groups. At the individual level, we found that females are less able than males to respond correctly. However, when females are included in groups with only other females, we found that they outperform both male and mixed groups. Female groups also appear to employ a more constructive group process than male groups in managing to better utilize their members’
capabilities. If this reflects a more general pattern for loan groups in microfinance, it may provide one reason why females find it more attractive to become members of microfinance institutions; they manage to cooperate well and can handle joint liability schemes in a constructive way.
Similar conclusions can be drawn from the risk game. At the individual level, both for males and females, there was an equal split between participants choosing the risky and the safe options.10 When groups decided whether to gamble, we saw that in general they were more likely than individuals were to play it safe, because only 15
(2009) concluded a similar pattern, and suggest that there is a shift to caution when people enter a group. Because females are often found to be more risk averse than males (Croson and Gneezy, 2009), one may consider that female groups would likewise be relatively hostile toward risk. However, this does not appear to be the case, as we find that the proportion of female groups that take risks is higher than the proportion of male and mixed groups. Nor do we find that females make significantly different choices as a group than they do individually. Thus, the acceptance of risk by female groups may be the reason why females appear more comfortable than males with group loans.
The finding that female groups perform better in the problem-‐‑solving game is probably related to the finding in the decision-‐‑making game. As female groups are more able to discuss and make common agreements in the problem-‐‑solving game, the fear of being blamed if the outcome of the gamble proves to be negative may be less important. On the other hand, in the male and mixed-‐‑gender groups, the atmosphere may be less inclusive, and groups may therefore more easily choose the no-‐‑risk option if, for example, one member is reluctant to gamble. However, while we find that group composition may influence the ability of groups to cooperate and solve problems, we find no gender differences in public-‐‑good contributions between the different groups, indicating that group composition does not influence the willingness to cooperate.
Our main findings are in line with Kuhn and Villeval (2011), who find that women prefer cooperative work environments, which is reasonable if they are in fact better cooperators than males, as our study also suggests. Our results are also consistent with Booth and Nolen (2012) who have shown that girls in girls-‐‑only schools are more eager to compete than girls in mixed schools, indicating that the presence of males may alter the behavior and preferences of females.
shed further light on the results from the experiment and to better understand the local context. We conducted five sessions of FGDs, two each with male and female groups and one mixed session, all consisting of 6–9 participants. Several interesting explanations were provided concerning the cooperation dynamics in the male and female groups. For instance, a male participant said:
There is a Kiswahili proverb: “Two bulls do not stay in one house.” When you put men together there is always a tendency for them to disagree with each other, while females on the other hand would listen to each other.
This quote reflects that it may be difficult for males to cooperate and listen to each other. Another male pointed out that women’s general lack of confidence makes them more open to the arguments of others:
Women lack self-‐‑confidence and this helps them to accept ideas and suggestions from other females. Unlike women, the self-‐‑confidence of males makes it difficult for them to accept ideas and suggestions from each other, and therefore they don’t perform well in a group.
The response from a woman in another session indicates that the lack of confidence observed among females is related to their belief that they have a disadvantage in terms of education. Hence, working together is seen as a solution:
… I told you that women lack experience and education; therefore it is more useful for them to work in groups rather than independently.
Discussing gender differences in groups, a male participant indicated the issue that males are expected to make decisions when placed together with females:
assuming that males are supposed to lead, even when the male is inexperienced in the relevant subject.
Conversely, a female participant said that it was not simply about females stepping aside, rather that male arguments are heeded to a greater extent:
In most cases a male’s suggestion, answer or idea is given more weight, thus women will tend to listen to men.
The findings from the focus groups indicate that in mixed groups, females step aside and let the males decide. Females also appear to lack self-‐‑confidence and assume that males are more knowledgeable. Males, on the other hand, tend not listen to each other and do not want to reveal weakness. However, when females are grouped, they realize that four heads are better than one, and in our games, this translates into discussing questions more openly and decisively to identify the correct response and by making decisions that suit the group as a whole. This indicates that females are dominated by males in group settings, thereby effectively constraining females from fully utilizing their knowledge and ability to cooperate.