IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/26484.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Leaning In or Not Leaning Out? Opt-Out Choice Framing Attenuates Gender Differences in the Decision to Compete

Author

Listed:
  • Joyce He
  • Sonia Kang
  • Nicola Lacetera

Abstract

In most organizations, promotions often require self-nomination and competition among applicants. However, research on gender differences in preferences for competition suggests that this process might result in fewer women choosing to participate. We study whether changing promotion schemes from a default where applicants must opt in (i.e., self-nominate) to a default where applicants must opt out (i.e., they are automatically considered for promotion, but can choose not to be considered) attenuates gender differences. In our first experiment, although women are less likely than men to choose competitive environments under the traditional opt-in framing, in the opt-out system both women and men have the same participation rate as men in the opt-in system. The increase in participation of women into competition is not associated with negative consequences on performance or well-being. In our second experiment, we show that opt-out framing does not entail penalties from evaluators making decisions about whom to hire. These results support the promise of choice architecture to reduce disparities in organizations. More generally, our findings suggest that gender differences in attitudes toward completion may be context-dependent.

Suggested Citation

  • Joyce He & Sonia Kang & Nicola Lacetera, 2019. "Leaning In or Not Leaning Out? Opt-Out Choice Framing Attenuates Gender Differences in the Decision to Compete," NBER Working Papers 26484, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:26484
    Note: LS PR ED
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w26484.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lazear, Edward P & Rosen, Sherwin, 1981. "Rank-Order Tournaments as Optimum Labor Contracts," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(5), pages 841-864, October.
    2. Clément Bosquet & Pierre‐Philippe Combes & Cecilia García‐Peñalosa, 2019. "Gender and Promotions: Evidence from Academic Economists in France," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 121(3), pages 1020-1053, July.
    3. Johnson, Stefanie K. & Murphy, Susan Elaine & Zewdie, Selamawit & Reichard, Rebecca J., 2008. "The strong, sensitive type: Effects of gender stereotypes and leadership prototypes on the evaluation of male and female leaders," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 39-60, May.
    4. Bosquet, Clément & Combes, Pierre-Philippe & Garcia-Penalosa, Cecilia, 2013. "Gender and competition: evidence from academic promotions in France," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 58350, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Muriel Niederle & Lise Vesterlund, 2007. "Do Women Shy Away From Competition? Do Men Compete Too Much?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(3), pages 1067-1101.
    6. Julie S. Downs & George Loewenstein & Jessica Wisdom, 2009. "Strategies for Promoting Healthier Food Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(2), pages 159-164, May.
    7. Muriel Niederle & Carmit Segal & Lise Vesterlund, 2013. "How Costly Is Diversity? Affirmative Action in Light of Gender Differences in Competitiveness," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(1), pages 1-16, May.
    8. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    9. Jeffrey A. Flory & Andreas Leibbrandt & John A. List, 2015. "Do Competitive Workplaces Deter Female Workers? A Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment on Job Entry Decisions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 82(1), pages 122-155.
    10. James J. Choi & David Laibson & Brigitte C. Madrian & Andrew Metrick, 2002. "Defined Contribution Pensions: Plan Rules, Participant Choices, and the Path of Least Resistance," NBER Chapters, in: Tax Policy and the Economy, Volume 16, pages 67-114, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/5cma2v9f098fu956p3fcsgt7d1 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Andrea Weber & Christine Zulehner, 2010. "Female Hires and the Success of Start-Up Firms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(2), pages 358-361, May.
    13. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    14. Cristian L. Dezsö & David Gaddis Ross, 2012. "Does female representation in top management improve firm performance? A panel data investigation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(9), pages 1072-1089, September.
    15. Andrew Healy & Jennifer Pate, 2011. "Can Teams Help to Close the Gender Competition Gap?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 121(555), pages 1192-1204, September.
    16. Chen, Daniel L. & Schonger, Martin & Wickens, Chris, 2016. "oTree—An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 88-97.
    17. James J. Choi & David Laibson & Brigitte C. Madrian & Andrew Metrick, 2001. "Defined Contribution Pensions: Plan Rules, Participant Decisions, and the Path of Least Resistance," NBER Working Papers 8655, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Christine L. Exley & Judd B. Kessler, 2019. "The Gender Gap in Self-Promotion," NBER Working Papers 26345, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Iris Bohnet & Alexandra van Geen & Max Bazerman, 2016. "When Performance Trumps Gender Bias: Joint vs. Separate Evaluation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(5), pages 1225-1234, May.
    20. Christine L. Exley & Judd B. Kessler, 2019. "The Gender Gap in Self-Promotion," Working Papers 2019-058, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    21. Reuben, Ernesto & Rey-Biel, Pedro & Sapienza, Paola & Zingales, Luigi, 2012. "The emergence of male leadership in competitive environments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 111-117.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Catherine Eckel & Lata Gangadharan & Philip J. Grossman & Nina Xue, 2021. "The gender leadership gap: insights from experiments," Chapters, in: Ananish Chaudhuri (ed.), A Research Agenda for Experimental Economics, chapter 7, pages 137-162, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Christine L. Exley & Judd B. Kessler, 2019. "The Gender Gap in Self-Promotion," NBER Working Papers 26345, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Christine L Exley & Judd B Kessler, 2022. "The Gender Gap in Self-Promotion," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 137(3), pages 1345-1381.
    4. Christine L. Exley & Judd B. Kessler, 2019. "The Gender Gap in Self-Promotion," Working Papers 2019-058, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Balafoutas, Loukas & Sutter, Matthias, 2019. "How uncertainty and ambiguity in tournaments affect gender differences in competitive behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 1-13.
    2. Catherine Eckel & Lata Gangadharan & Philip J. Grossman & Nina Xue, 2021. "The gender leadership gap: insights from experiments," Chapters, in: Ananish Chaudhuri (ed.), A Research Agenda for Experimental Economics, chapter 7, pages 137-162, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Beaurain, Guillaume & Masclet, David, 2016. "Does affirmative action reduce gender discrimination and enhance efficiency? New experimental evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 350-362.
    4. Carpenter, Jeffrey & Frank, Rachel & Huet-Vaughn, Emiliano, 2018. "Gender differences in interpersonal and intrapersonal competitive behavior," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 170-176.
    5. Oriana Bandiera & Nidhi Parekh & Barbara Petrongolo & Michelle Rao, 2022. "Men are from Mars, and Women Too: A Bayesian Meta‐analysis of Overconfidence Experiments," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 89(S1), pages 38-70, June.
    6. Goodall, Amanda H. & Osterloh, Margit, 2015. "Women Have to Enter the Leadership Race to Win: Using Random Selection to Increase the Supply of Women into Senior Positions," IZA Discussion Papers 9331, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Jordi Brandts & Valeska Groenert & Christina Rott, 2015. "The Impact of Advice on Women's and Men's Selection into Competition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(5), pages 1018-1035, May.
    8. Zhengyang Bao & Andreas Leibbrandt, 2020. "Tournaments with Safeguards: A Blessing or a Curse for Women?," Monash Economics Working Papers 02-20, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    9. Gjedrem, William Gilje & Kvaløy, Ola, 2020. "Relative performance feedback to teams," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    10. Danková, Katarína & Servátka, Maroš, 2019. "Gender robustness of overconfidence and excess entry," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 179-199.
    11. Klinowski, David, 2019. "Selection into self-improvement and competition pay: Gender, stereotypes, and earnings volatility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 128-146.
    12. Ernesto Reuben & Matthew Wiswall & Basit Zafar, 2017. "Preferences and Biases in Educational Choices and Labour Market Expectations: Shrinking the Black Box of Gender," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(604), pages 2153-2186, September.
    13. José J. Domínguez & Natalia Montinari, 2021. "Gender Quotas and Task Assignment in Organizations," ThE Papers 21/13, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    14. Andreas Leibbrandt & Liang Choon Wang & Cordelia Foo, 2018. "Gender Quotas, Competitions, and Peer Review: Experimental Evidence on the Backlash Against Women," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(8), pages 3501-3516, August.
    15. Arthur Schram & Jordi Brandts & Klarita Gërxhani, 2019. "Social-status ranking: a hidden channel to gender inequality under competition," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 396-418, June.
    16. Sharma, Karmini & Castagnetti, Alessandro, 2023. "Demand for information by gender: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 207(C), pages 172-202.
    17. Buser, Thomas & Ranehill, Eva & van Veldhuizen, Roel, 2021. "Gender differences in willingness to compete: The role of public observability," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    18. Zhang, Peilu & Zhang, Yinjunjie & Palma, Marco, 2018. "Social Norms and Competitiveness: My Willingness to Compete Depends on Who I am (supposed to be)," MPRA Paper 89727, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Eber, Nicolas & François, Abel & Weill, Laurent, 2021. "Gender, age, and attitude toward competition," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 668-690.
    20. Dato, Simon & Nieken, Petra, 2014. "Gender differences in competition and sabotage," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 64-80.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • J16 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination
    • J24 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Human Capital; Skills; Occupational Choice; Labor Productivity
    • J82 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor Standards - - - Labor Force Composition
    • M5 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Personnel Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:26484. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.