RESEARCH

WORKING PAPERS

Once a Competitor, Always a Competitor? [Click here for latest working draft]

Abstract: Using two experiments, this paper investigates whether the nature of a prior interaction between two individuals, specifically, competition or collaboration, affects their subsequent interactions with each other. Both experiments have the same two-part structure. Participants are paired up randomly and anonymously, and interact with the same matched participant throughout the experiment. In Part 1, participants either compete with their matched participant or collaborate with their matched participant. In Part 2, participants interact with that same matched participant in a series of scenarios unrelated to their prior competition or collaboration. On the whole, in their subsequent interactions in Part 2, I find that individuals are less prosocial and more antisocial towards people they had competed with in Part 1 compared to people they had collaborated with in Part 1. Consistent with previous studies, I also find that individuals have more negative beliefs about the behaviour of a past competitor.

Competition-Induced Psyche Change and Sabotage at the Workplace [Click here for latest working draft]

Abstract: Using two experimental studies, this paper investigates (1) whether being in a competition alters an individual's psyche, leading to an increased willingness to sabotage (i.e., hurt) a co-worker in order to benefit one's self, and (2) if individuals are willing to pay to avoid work settings with opportunities to sabotage and be sabotaged. Study 1 finds that, despite having a similar monetary incentive to sabotage a co-worker, individuals in a competitive setting sabotage more, with the increase mainly occurring on the intensive margin. Conditional on sabotaging, women are also observed to sabotage less than men. More altruistic individuals are also found to be less willing to engage in any sabotage. Study 2 finds that on the whole, there is variance in individuals' willingness to pay to avoid sabotage. Some individuals are willing to pay to avoid work settings where co-workers can sabotage one another while others are willing to pay to be in such settings. Women have a greater willingness to pay to avoid work settings with sabotage compared to men. However, this willingness to pay to avoid sabotage does not seem to differ across individuals with different levels of altruism. I also do not find that women have a higher willingness to pay to avoid competitive work settings which is different from past studies that find that women tend to shy away from competition.

Do Women Shy Away From Toxic Competition? [Click here for latest working draft]

Abstract: Using an experiment, this paper investigates whether women shy away from competitive settings that involve toxic behaviour amongst workers. Participants make binary choices between three compensation schemes — a piece-rate scheme, a competitive scheme with no opportunities to sabotage, and a competitive scheme with opportunities to sabotage. Despite no gender difference in performance, a lower proportion of women (19.9%) compared to men (32.4%) choose the competitive scheme with sabotage over the piece-rate scheme. Similarly, a lower proportion of women (19.5%) compared to men (33.8%) choose the competitive scheme with sabotage over the competitive scheme without. This gender gap continues to persist even after controlling for confidence, risk attitudes, altruism, and beliefs about the likelihood and extent of sabotage they might be a victim of. While a lower proportion of women (36%) compared to men (40.9%) choose the competitive scheme with no opportunities to sabotage over the piece-rate scheme, this difference is not statistically significant. These findings imply that the presence of sabotage exacerbates the gender gap in the willingness to compete, and that women are more averse, compared to men, towards toxic workplace behaviour. Consistent with previous studies, I also observe that women are less willing to engage in sabotage. Furthermore, I also find that participants who are more willing to engage in sabotage are also more likely to select into competitive environments, both toxic and non-toxic.

PUBLICATIONS

Go Vegan? Prejudice, (Blind) Experimentation, and Food Choices (with Michèle Belot)

AEA Papers and Proceedings Vol. 141 (666-71), 2024