IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/eid/wpaper/58169.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Gazes and numbers: Two experiments in strategic sophistication and gender bias

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Cubel

    (University of Bath)

  • Santiago Sanchez-Pages

    (King's College London)

Abstract

We investigate whether gender differences in strategic behavior depend on the perceived gender bias of strategic interactions. We use two weakly dominance solvable games where a prize is at stake. The first one is the two-person beauty contest, where strategies are numbers and players must perform mathematical operations. The second is the novel "gaze coach game", where strategies are photographs of the eye region and the two players must assign emotional states to these images. We find that males display significantly higher strategic sophistication than females in the first game but not in the second one, which is perceived to be female biased. However, females are underrepresented among top performers in both games.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Cubel & Santiago Sanchez-Pages, 2021. "Gazes and numbers: Two experiments in strategic sophistication and gender bias," Department of Economics Working Papers 78/21, University of Bath, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:eid:wpaper:58169
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://purehost.bath.ac.uk/ws/files/227521907/WPBath78.21.pdf
    File Function: Final published version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:eid:wpaper:58169. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Scholarly Communications Librarian (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/debatuk.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.