Research

Publications

"Experimental Methods: Pay One or Pay All" with Gary Charness & Uri Gneezy (Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization)

Abstract: In some experiments participants make multiple decisions; this feature facilitates gathering a considerable amount of incentivized data over the course of a compact session. A conservative payment scheme is to pay for the outcome from every decision made. An alternative approach is to pay for the outcome of only a subset of the choices made, with the amount at stake for this choice multiplied to compensate for the decreased likelihood of that choice’s outcome being drawn for payoff. This “pay one” approach can help to avoid wealth effects, hedging, and bankruptcy considerations. A third method is to pay only a subset of the participants for their choices, thereby minimizing transactions costs. While the evidence on differences across payment methods is mixed, overall it suggests that paying for only a subset of periods or individuals is at least as effective as the "pay all" approach and can well be more effective. We further the discussion about how to best choose an incentive structure when designing an experiment.

"Gender, Emotions, and Tournament Performance in the Laboratory" (Games)

Abstract: Individuals face competitive environments daily, and it is important to understand how emotions affect behavior in these environments and resulting economic consequences. Using a two-stage laboratory experiment, I analyze the role of reported emotions in tournament performance and assess how the behavioral response differs across genders. The first stage serves to induce emotions, while the second stage presents the subject with a one-on-one winner-take-all tournament with the individual who generated the feeling, using a real-effort task. Ultimately, I show that women respond to the negative feelings more strongly than men. I find that women increase performance when experiencing negative emotions, while male performance remains unaffected. Remarkably, there is no gender gap in tournament performance when there are negative emotions.

"BE and EE: Cousins but not Twins" with Gary Charness (Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy)

Abstract: While behavioral economics and experimental economics are largely aligned and share many similarities, they also share differences. Behavioral economics is a collection of theories and models while experimental economics is a tool. The clear union of behavioral and experimental economics allows for a continual growth of knowledge. Behavioral models are refined through observed behavior in the laboratory and observed laboratory behavior yields new behavioral models. Behavioral and experimental economics can very much follow a cycle. Both have become valuable tools to policy makers around the world.

"Perception Matters: The Role of Task Gender Stereotype on Confidence and Tournament Selection"  with Rachel Landsman

(Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization)

Abstract: Women avoid competition even when they can benefit from potential rewards. It may be that a gender difference in beliefs about future performance drives this gap. Using a laboratory experiment, we analyze differences in tournament entry using a male-stereotyped task and a female stereotyped task. We find that while women enter the tournament significantly less than men under the male stereotyped task, this gender gap in willingness to compete closes and reverses under the female stereotyped task. This suggests the effect of competitiveness on gender is not exclusively about a difference in preference for competition, but may be consistent with a difference in beliefs about future performance.

Working Papers

"Shame on Me: Emotions and Gender Differences in Taking with Earned Endowments" with Rachel Landsman

(Revise & Resubmit at the Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics)

Abstract: We study gender differences in a taking-framed dictator game. We expand on past studies documenting gender differences in the taking-framed dictator game by asking whether gender differences persist when endowments are earned. We find a strong and robust gender effect. Women take less than men both in terms of overall amounts and share taken. We further elicit emotions following the taking game. Shame is positively correlated with taking behavior; this could be a contributing factor to taking aversion documented in the literature. Interestingly we do not observe gender differences in reported emotions or emotional intensity by either dictators or receivers.

"Gender Perceptions of Common Real-Effort Tasks" with Rachel Landsman

(Submitted at the Journal of the Economic Science Association)

Abstract: Experimental economics research frequently uses real-effort tasks to study gender-related questions. The ability to draw conclusions relies on using tasks that correctly induce the targeted gender stereotype. This paper formalizes the gender perceptions of these common real-effort tasks and discusses results from an online survey eliciting gender stereotypes. We find that math tasks and verbal tasks carry only weak male and female stereotypes, respectively. In contrast, emotion recognition tasks carry a much stronger female stereotype. More importantly, we find substantial disagreement among participants’ reported beliefs in the gender stereotyping across many of the tasks studied. Using our survey results, we demonstrate that high variance in reported beliefs paired with a weak gender stereotype may cause researchers to fail to induce their chosen stereotype even in large experimental samples. We caution researchers about assuming they have effectively induced their intended gender priming without conducting sample-specific surveys of participant beliefs.

"Anchoring of Political Attitudes" with Courtney Broscious and Rachel Landsman

(Under Review at Economics Letters) 

Abstract: In the era of “fake news”, one concern is the veracity of data being consumed by laypeople and the effect this data may have on individuals’ political preferences and beliefs. In an online survey experiment we study the malleability of individual’s political preferences to simple anchors – the response of a previous survey respondent. We vary whether the anchor aligns or misaligns with the preferences commonly chosen by those in the individual’s political party.  We demonstrate that anchoring has a significant effect on individual’s stated political preferences and that absent information about the party affiliation for the anchor source, anchors have as strong of an effect on preferences as individual’s political party. We further discuss in progress research in which we explore how sensitivity to anchoring is affected by the interaction between the source of the anchor – e.g., whether it comes from a political ally or opponent – and the alignment of the anchor.

Work in Progress

"Fear of Failure or Fear of Success? The Role of Task Stereotypes and Appropriateness in Competition Choice" with Rachel Landsman and Erin Giffin

Abstract: One shortcoming of the broader experimental economic research on gender stereotypes is that they narrowly focus on stereotypes in terms of perceived gender-advantage and do not address stereotypes along other dimensions such as social acceptability. Broadly, this project aims to propose new real effort tasks that exhibit more variation in terms of both perceived gender-advantage and social acceptability. Additionally, this project intends to study how gender differences in competition are affected by variations in the perceived gender-advantage and variations in the social acceptability of tasks. Motivated by the sociological concept of impression management (Goffman, 1956), we hypothesize that the latter dimension may be even more influential in affecting competition entry decisions when competing in public domains. We have already begun data collection and task creation for this project. To date, we have collected survey data on the perceived gender advantage of existing real-effort tasks; created new real-effort tasks that are easily implemented in online environments; and collected survey data on the perceived gender-advantage and a simple measure of perceived social acceptability of the new real-effort tasks. We have also conducted data analysis on the survey data collected. The next stage of our study involves conducting a survey using the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) (Bem, 1974) in conjunction with the Reysen likeability scale (Reysen, 2005) to study how entry into competition and good performance on tasks affects how they are perceived by others and how this varies with the gender congruency of task stereotypes. This will provide us with a richer measure of social acceptability. The final stage of this study involves running a study on competition entry with both public and private performance using a subset of the newly created real-effort tasks to analyze how the gender gap in competition entry responds to variation in social acceptability, confidence, and gender-roles.

"The effect of gender and framing on dictator decisions with non-WEIRD participants" with Rachel Landsman, Amy Wolaver, John Doces, and Jack Goldberg

Abstract: This study presents results from a double-blind dictator game lab-in-the-field experiment in Côte d’Ivoire. We manipulate the framing of the dictator decision from giving to taking using an envelope system in which participants either move money out of their envelope into their partner’s envelope or move money from their partner’s envelope into their envelope. We examine the effect of framing on dictator decisions and study whether the effects of framing differ by gender. We discuss how these results compare to those from studies run using WEIRD participants. Data collection will be completed in March 2022. We anticipate having results shortly thereafter.

"Hispanic College Graduates in Connecticut: The Psychology of Major Choice and Wage Differentials" with Maryanne Clifford and Margaret Letterman

"The Role of Task Stereotype on Effort Attribution Decisions"