Researchers at Toyo University in Tokyo conducted a cross-cultural examination of how men respond to being part of mixed-gender teams versus all-male groups. The study, published in Evolutionary Psychological Science, sought to understand whether gender composition within a team influences the kinds of tasks that men choose when options range from physically demanding and potentially dangerous to less difficult and risky alternatives.
Involving a large and diverse sample, the researchers recruited 5,279 participants aged 18 to 110 from 14 different countries. Participants were randomly assigned to work in groups composed of either opposite sexes or the same sex. Each participant was then asked to pick tasks from two online lists. One set contained tasks with higher physical demands and greater risk, while the other set offered tasks that were comparatively easier and less risky.
The results showed a noticeable pattern: when men worked alongside women, they were significantly more inclined to select the more complex and risky tasks. This tendency aligns with long-standing evolutionary theories that associate male risk-taking with mate-finding strategies. Importantly, this pattern persisted across cultures represented in the study, suggesting a potential cross-cultural consistency in how social context can influence risk preferences among men.
Conversely, when participants worked with other men, task choices tended to cluster around the same level of difficulty. In such same-gender groups, the distribution of task selections was more uniform, with fewer shifts toward high-risk or low-risk extremes. These findings imply that the presence of women in a team may subtly shift men toward riskier or more ambitious tasks, while all-male teams foster a more balanced or moderated approach to task difficulty.
From a broader perspective, the study challenges common assumptions about gender equality by highlighting that inherent physical and psychological differences between men and women can shape how individuals approach roles and activities within a team. The authors emphasize that the results should be interpreted as illuminating tendencies rather than universal laws, and they call for careful consideration of social context, cultural norms, and individual variation when applying these insights to workplaces or educational settings.
The research also contributes to ongoing discussions about how motivational factors, social dynamics, and mating strategies might interact with group composition to influence behavior. While the study cannot determine causation and acknowledges potential limitations such as participant self-selection and the artificial nature of online task choices, it nevertheless provides a robust data set that supports the idea of context-dependent risk-taking among men. This nuance is important for policymakers, educators, and business leaders who seek to design teams and assign responsibilities in a way that respects both individual differences and the value of diverse perspectives.
Ultimately, the study adds to a growing body of literature suggesting that gender composition within teams can shape decision-making and activity choices. It underscores the importance of recognizing how social and psychological factors interact with perceived risk, rather than assuming uniform behavior across all individuals. By exploring these dynamics in a large, culturally diverse sample, the researchers offer a more nuanced view of human behavior that can inform discussions about leadership, collaboration, and learning in multicultural environments. It is a reminder that team design matters—and that what seems like a simple preference for task difficulty can reveal deeper insights into how people respond to different social contexts.
Earlier research in psychology has suggested that boys may report higher levels of happiness than girls in some contexts. This historical observation is not the main focus of the Toyo University study, but it provides a backdrop for understanding how gendered experiences and self-perceived well-being can intersect with work-related choices and social dynamics. Taken together, these findings contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of how gender, culture, and group composition influence the decisions people make when faced with varying levels of risk and challenge.