IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0336066.html

Is the evaluation of performance gender specific? Evidence from two large experimental studies

Author

Listed:
  • Axel Franzen
  • Fabienne Wöhner

Abstract

It is often assumed that women receive less recognition than men for the same work or performance. We test this assumption via two large-scale online-survey experiments involving 3,157 (Study I) and 2,909 (Study II) respondents respectively. In both studies, subjects watched a two-minute video in which either a female or a male character presented either a male-associated topic, a gender-neutral topic, or a female-associated topic. Since former research suggests that the attractiveness of the presenter increases performance evaluations, we also varied the attractiveness of the presenting characters. Study I uses a 2 (gender) by 2 (attractiveness) by 3 (topic) design. The video presentations were created using an artificial intelligence video-maker that used human-like avatars. In Study II, the presentations were conducted by real humans. The findings from both studies suggest that gender has no influence on how respondents evaluate presentations. Additionally, in Study I we find that attractive male avatar presenters receive more favorable evaluations than less attractive males. In contrast, female avatar presenters do not receive an attractiveness bonus. However, when using real humans instead of avatars we did not find this attractiveness bonus for men.

Suggested Citation

  • Axel Franzen & Fabienne Wöhner, 2026. "Is the evaluation of performance gender specific? Evidence from two large experimental studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(2), pages 1-15, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0336066
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0336066
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0336066
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0336066&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0336066?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hamermesh, Daniel S. & Parker, Amy, 2005. "Beauty in the classroom: instructors' pulchritude and putative pedagogical productivity," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 369-376, August.
    2. Francine D. Blau & Lawrence M. Kahn, 2017. "The Gender Wage Gap: Extent, Trends, and Explanations," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 55(3), pages 789-865, September.
    3. Friederike Mengel & Jan Sauermann & Ulf Zölitz, 2019. "Gender Bias in Teaching Evaluations," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(2), pages 535-566.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ahmed, Shaker & Ranta, Mikko & Vähämaa, Emilia & Vähämaa, Sami, 2023. "Facial attractiveness and CEO compensation: Evidence from the banking industry," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    2. Friederike Mengel & Jan Sauermann & Ulf Zölitz, 2019. "Gender Bias in Teaching Evaluations," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(2), pages 535-566.
    3. Paredes, Valentina & Pino, Francisco J. & Díaz, David, 2024. "Does facial structure explain differences in student evaluations of teaching? The role of fWHR as a proxy for perceived dominance," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    4. Karen Mumford & Cristina Sechel, 2020. "Pay and Job Rank among Academic Economists in the UK: Is Gender Relevant?," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 58(1), pages 82-113, March.
    5. Keng, Shao-Hsun, 2020. "Gender bias and statistical discrimination against female instructors in student evaluations of teaching," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    6. Eren, Ozkan, 2023. "Potential in-group bias at work: Evidence from performance evaluations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 296-312.
    7. Alexander Cappelen & Ranveig Falch & Bertil Tungodden, 2019. "The Boy Crisis: Experimental Evidence on the Acceptance of Males Falling Behind," Working Papers 2019-014, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    8. Veronika Grimm & Holger A Rau & Simeon Schächtele, 2020. "Gender differences in multi-employee gift exchange with self-reported contributions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-19, September.
    9. Catherine C. Eckel & Lata Gangadharan & Philip J. Grossman & Miranda Lambert & Nina Xue, 2025. "Closing the Gender Leadership Gap: Competitive versus Cooperative Institutions," Monash Economics Working Papers 2025-17, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    10. Moritz Drechsel-Grau & Felix Holub, 2020. "Gender Gaps and the Role of Bosses," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2020_237, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    11. Andreas Kuhn & Stefan C. Wolter, 2023. "The strength of gender norms and gender‐stereotypical occupational aspirations among adolescents," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 76(1), pages 101-124, February.
    12. Antonio Cabrales & Lorenzo Ductor & Ericka Rascon-Ramirez & Ismael Rodriguez-Lara, 2025. "Gender Stereotypes and Homophily in Team Formation," Working Papers DTE 648, CIDE, División de Economía.
    13. Kelley,Erin Munro & Lane,Gregory & Pecenco,Matthew Giovanni & Rubin,Edward, 2022. "Customer Discrimination in the Workplace: Evidence from Online Sales," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10228, The World Bank.
    14. Babin, J. Jobu & Hussey, Andrew, 2023. "Gender penalties and solidarity — Teaching evaluation differentials in and out of STEM," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    15. Nisvan Erkal & Lata Gangadharan & Boon Han Koh, 2021. "Gender Biases in Performance Evaluation: The Role of Beliefs Versus Outcomes," University of East Anglia School of Economics Working Paper Series 2021-09, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    16. Parshakov, Petr & Gasparetto, Thadeu & Votintseva, Nadezhda & Shakina, Elena, 2024. "Beyond the pitch: Exploring the role of beauty in soccer player salaries," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    17. repec:plo:pone00:0209749 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Alkusari, Haneen & Datta Gupta, Nabanita & Etcoff, Nancy, 2024. "In the eye of the promoter? How faculty ratings of attractiveness matter for junior academic careers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 645-659.
    19. Masso, Jaan & Meriküll, Jaanika & Roosaar, Liis & Rõigas, Kärt & Paas, Tiiu, 2025. "What determines the gender pay gap in academia?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    20. Lorenzo Ductor & Sanjeev Goyal & Anja Prummer, 2018. "Gender & Collaboration," Working Papers 856, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    21. Andreas Menzel & Christopher Woodruff, 2019. "Gender Wage Gaps and Worker Mobility: Evidence from the Garment Sector in Bangladesh," NBER Working Papers 25982, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0336066. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.