Many real-world choices involve explore–exploit decisions: balancing the search for better opportunities against securing a possibly suboptimal outcome. Do gendered approaches to these decisions exist? We study this question in a pre-registered laboratory experiment with 419 participants (∼ 50% female). Behaviour is observed under a piece-rate scheme and a tournament setting. Participants complete three tasks: (i) the Grain Game (explore–exploit) in two otherwise identical environments—one with gains only and one with gains and losses; (ii) an incentivized risk-elicitation task (BRET); and (iii) a loss-aversion task, followed by a questionnaire eliciting individual characteristics and beliefs. We show that, when losses are not possible (gains only), women place a higher value on information and explore more than men (consistent with over-exploration); once losses are possible (gains and losses) and the cost of deviating from exploitation rises, gender differences in exploration disappear. Competition per se does not induce exploration, and the raw gender gap in competitive entry is accounted for by incentivized controls for beliefs/self-confidence. Move-level regressions show adjustment margins: men reduce exploration after realized negative payoffs (threshold response), whereas women reduce exploration at the treatment level when losses are possible. Overall, our evidence indicates an information-seeking mechanism that drives exploration when downside risk is not possible but is muted when losses become possible, whereas cross-gender differences in information processing and use persist, yielding distinct choice dynamics.