Job Market Paper:

Blindsided at the Start: Small Early Shocks and High-Stakes Selection (JMP Link)

with Yi CHEN (ShanghaiTech University), Sikun DOU(Singapore Management University), Hongbin LI(Stanford University) 

Presented at: Inaugural IZA@LISER Conference in Labour Economics(Scheduled),  Labour Reading Group (University of Cambridge), Ph.D. Empirical Brown Bag (LMU Munich), Ph.D. Micro Brown Bag (LMU Munich)

Abstract

A central question in institutional design is how formal rules translate into realized economic outcomes. We examine this question in high-stakes selection, distinguishing the first question's formal scoring contribution from its wider influence on performance. Combining administrative records for 13.6 million candidates in China's National College Entrance Examination with GPT-4o-based difficulty measures for 484 mathematics questions from 22 examination sets, we exploit variation in opening difficulty across administratively assigned papers, conditional on measured aggregate difficulty, province and year fixed effects, and individual characteristics. A one-standard-deviation increase in opening difficulty is associated with a 6.4-point decline in mathematics scores. This point estimate exceeds the item's maximum five-point value, suggesting effects beyond its direct scoring contribution. Students from high schools with stronger first-tier university admission records incur smaller losses. When applications are submitted before the examination, this differential extends to relative rank, with suggestive evidence that the STEM university placement gap among admitted students widens by 1.4 percentage points in their favor. Patterns across examination contexts and task content are consistent with expectation-based salience against a familiar easy-start convention, potentially operating through cognitive interference. The findings suggest that individual responses can give a component with limited formal scoring stakes wider influence over high-stakes selection.

Work in Progress:

2025.04-Now GenAI Generated Emotional Paintings and Pro-Environmental Behaviour

with  Alice Guerra (University of Bologna), Jiajia LI (Sichuan Agricultrual University), Alessandro Tavoni (University of Bologna), Jian ZHANG (Sichuan Agricultural University) 

Presented at:  Micro Summer Retreat (LMU Munich)

2021.12-Now Playing it Safe: How Conservatism Shapes the Gender Gap in High-Stakes Decisions (Draft Link)

with Yi CHEN (ShanghaiTech University), Sikun DOU(Singapore Management University), Hongbin LI(Stanford University) 

Presented at: the 8th China Center for Economic Research Summer Institute(2024), EEA-ESEM Rotterdam (2024), and the International SITES-GLO Conference (2024), AIEL – DSE Workshop(2025)(Poster Session).

Abstract 

A large body of laboratory experiments has confirmed that women are more risk-averse than men. However, less is known about the real-world costs and benefits of being cautious. We explore this question by examining gender differences in school choices during the Chinese College Entrance Examination (Gaokao) in the early 2000s. During our study period, China employed a sequential admission mechanism, making the choice of a first-batch first-preference school particularly risky. If a student narrowly missed the cutoff for that school, they faced a high likelihood of being placed in a significantly less desirable school. We find consistent evidence that female students were more likely to avoid this risk by selecting a more conservative option as their first-preference choice. This strategy involves both costs and benefits. On the benefit side, given their test scores, female students were less likely to fail their target schools compared to male students. On the cost side, however, they were more often admitted to lower-quality schools and less desirable majors. These gender differences remain robust across a range of checks, including controls for preferences toward specific majors and types of schools. To further validate that these patterns are driven by differences in risk aversion, we exploit policy shifts in the timing of preference submissions—from before to after exam results were known—which reduced uncertainty. We find that reduced uncertainty narrows the gender gap across various outcomes.

Science Dissemination

              All disseminations are supported by International PhD College, Collegio Superiore, University of Bologna