Siri Isaksson


About me:

I am a sixth-year PhD student in Economics and a Research Fellow at the Women and Public Policy Program at Harvard Kennedy School. My primary research areas are experimental and behavioral economics. Specifically, I am interested in understanding how gender differences in everyday decision-making translate into unequal outcomes for men and women. In my job market paper “It Takes Two: Gender Differences in Group Work”, I demonstrate that women consistently under-credit their contributions to shared work - and that this effect is strongest among women who contribute the most, and work on complex solutions. I have also collaborated on several replication studies.

I am on the Job Market this year, and will be available for interviews at the ASSA Meeting in Atlanta, and the EEA Meeting in Naples.

I hold an M.Sc from the Stockholm School of Economics and a B.Sc. from Humboldt University of Berlin.

Please click here to see my full CV.


PUBLICATIONS:

Co-authored with: Colin F. Camerer and others:

"Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015", Nature Human Behaviour. 2018

Camerer CF, Dreber A, Forsell E, Ho TH, Huber J, Johannesson M, Kirchler M, Almenberg J, Altmejd A, Chan T, Heikensten E, Holzmeister F, Imai T, Isaksson S, Nave G, Pfeiffer T, Razen M, Wu H. “Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics.” Science. 2016

Dreber, Anna, Thomas Pfeiffer, Johan Almenberg, Siri Isaksson, Brad Wilson, Yiling Chen, Brian A. Nosek & Magnus Johannesson (in press). “Using Prediction Markets to Estimate the Reproducibility of Scientific Research”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2015

WORK IN PROGRESS:

“It Takes Two: Gender differences in in group work.” [JOB MARKET PAPER]

Abstract This study tests for gender differences in credit claimed for individual contributions to group work. I introduce a novel experimental design in which two subjects work together on solving a computerized puzzle, by making alternating moves. Participants play nine rounds, each time with a new partner and puzzle. After each puzzle, they are asked to estimate their contributions towards the solution in incentivized questions. There are no gender differences in ability: women and men are equally good at solving the puzzle both individually and in teams. Despite their equal contribution, women consistently claim less credit than men. This effect is strongest among high contributing women, and women in groups that implemented more complex solutions. I also explore the propensity of participants to undo a partner's move, and I find that men are more likely to correct a partner when he or she made a move that was wrong. These results suggest that gender differences in claiming credit may contribute to the labor market gender gap.

“In favor of girls: A field study of adults' beliefs in children's ability.” (with Emma Heikensten).

Abstract In this paper, we examine whether adults (N=123) engage in gender discrimination when seeking advice from children (N=38). To answer this question, we collect data from the five seasons of the Swedish Game Show “Are you smarter than a 5th grader?” where adult contestants choose a boy or a girl from 5th grade to help them earn large amounts of money by answering questions from the primary school curriculum. We observe that girls are 9.5 percentage points more likely to be asked for advice than boys. This corresponds to a 18,1 percent gap in favor of girls. The favoritism is not rational since boys and girls perform equally well.


“Simon Says: Examining gender differences in advice seeking and influence in the lab.” (with Emma Heikensten).

Abstract Advice seeking is an important part of both professional and personal decision making. In this paper, we investigate gender differences in the propensity to seek costly advice and if the gender of the advisor influences this decision. Over two treatments, we vary the amount of information that advisees receive about advisors on the quality of their advice. We also use two types of questions, mathematical and verbal, to test the effect of stereotyped domains. Our findings suggest that women seek less advice than men. This result is driven by men seeking more advice on verbal tasks, and women seeking less advice when information about it's quality is introduced. Furthermore, the advisor's gender does not influence the decision to seek advice and we do not find that advisees seek more (or less) advice from advisors of the same gender.



“Gender differences in revenge and strategic play: a natural experiment.” (with Sirus Dehdari and Emma Heikensten).

Abstract This paper provides new evidence of gender differences in retaliatory behavior. Using game show data from a natural setting where stakes are high, we ask whether men are more likely to retaliate following an attack and whether the gender of the target matters for this decision. The behavior studied in this paper is the decision of whom to send the question to in a quiz show setting. We observe a 23 percent gender gap in the propensity to retaliate: women are less likely to seek revenge. The gender of the target matters for women but not for men, with women being more likely to retaliate against men than women. In addition, we show that retaliation is a successful way to avert future attacks in the short term. This is especially true for women, yet we find that women seek less revenge than men.


TEACHING EXPERIENCE:

Microeconomics II (PhD) - Fall 2015

International Economics (Undergraduate) - Fall 2014

Introduction to LaTeX (at Humboldt Universität zu Berlin) - Fall 2010


COLLABORATORS:


Emma Heikensten

Semsomi

Sirus Dehdari