Publications

"The Slider Task: An Example of Restricted Inference on Incentive Effects" with F. Agusto, E. Carbone, L. Connel-Price, M. Duinietz, A. Jaroszewicz, D. Lamé, L. Vesterlund, S. Wang, and A. Wilson (Journal of the Economic Science Association)

Abstract: Real-effort experiments are frequently used when examining a response to incentives. For a real-effort task to be well suited for such an exercise its measurable output must be sufficiently elastic over the incentives considered. The popular slider task in Gill and Prowse (Am Econ Rev 102(1):469–503, 2012) has been characterized as satisfying this requirement, and the task is increasingly used to investigate the response to incentives. However, a between-subject examination of the slider task’s response to incentives has not been conducted. We provide such an examination with three different piece-rate incentives: half a cent, two cents, and eight cents per slider completed. We find only a small increase in performance: despite a 1500 % increase in the incentives, output only increases by 5 %. With such an inelastic response we caution that for typical experimental sample sizes and incentives the slider task is unlikely to demonstrate a meaningful and statistically significant performance response.

"Perception Matters: The Role of Task Gender Stereotype on Confidence and Tournament Selection" with B. Halladay (Journal of Economic Behavior and 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 novel female stereotyped task. We provide robust evidence supporting the gender stereotypes of the task and 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

"Gender Differences in Executive Departure"

Abstract: The underrepresentation of women in top-management positions has received substantial attention within the economics literature. Studies focusing on executive departure largely show that female executives exhibit higher departure rates. However, existing studies do not test whether this difference is explained by differences in ability. This study uses exogenous changes in firm performance to examine the potential role of ability in generating differential departure rates. I show that, following industry-wide contractions, the overall departure rate for female executives increases by approximately 5 percentage points while no change is observed in the departure rate for male executives. The data show that ability differences do not drive the difference in departure rates and also suggest that the gap is not explained by differences in fertility, early retirement, the glass cliff, differences in external hire rates, or female start-ups. I argue that one remaining channel that is consistent with the observed gender difference in departure rates is misplaced blame (e.g., attribution bias) on female executives.

"Shame on Me: Emotions and Gender Differences in Taking with Earned Endowments" with B. Halladay (R&R at Journal of the Economic Science Association)

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.

Selected Works in Progress

(Note: * denotes student coauthors)

"Anchoring in the Domain of Political Preferences" with B. Halladay, C. Broscious, and L. Sullivan* (Draft forthcoming)

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.

"Gender Perceptions of Common Real-Effort Tasks" with B. Halladay, A. Fisher*, and H. Lifter* (Draft forthcoming)

Abstract: Experimental economics research frequently uses gendered real-effort tasks to study a myriad of gender related questions. The ability to draw conclusions relies on using tasks that correctly induce the targeted gender stereotype. Currently, there is no single methodology paper assessing the gender perception of the real-effort tasks used extensively in the literature, and this paper seeks to formalize the gender perceptions of these real-effort tasks. Using an online survey, participants were presented with a description and an example of the task, were then presented with a slider, and then used the slider to indicate which gender they believed would perform better at the task. The individuals surveyed were not asked to complete the task themselves. The included emotion tasks were perceived as carrying the strongest female stereotype while the math tasks were confirmed to carry a male stereotype. The included verbal tasks carried a weak female stereotype. These results were robust when controlling for individual heterogeneity. We also find significant differences in the variance of beliefs across tasks, suggesting some tasks may require in-experiment belief elicitations about the gender stereotype of the task.

"Fear of Failure or Fear of Success? The Role of Task Stereotypes and Appropriateness in Competition Choice" with B. Halladay and E. 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 B. Halladay, A. Wolaver, J. 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.

"Gender Differences in Likeability and Team Synergy" with E. Giffin and R. Gihleb

"The Effect of Negotiation on Securing Equal Pay for Equal Work" with R. Gihleb and L. Vesterlund

Hibernating Projects

"Giving Forward: A Potential Supplement to Student Loans'' with D. Danz, D. Huffman, L. Vesterlund, S. Wang, and A. Wilson

"Belief Formation and Tournament Entry under Random versus Non-Random Relative Performance Feedback" with C. Wenjing Xu