Disentangling the mechanisms driving the treatment effect in the gender-competitiveness bias

Abstract

Despite the large body of research regarding the gender-effect in competiveness, a large hiatus still remains. Whilst ample previous research has demonstrated that males are more likely than females to engage in competition in stereotypically “male” tasks (e.g. relying on visuo-spatial orientation or mathematical skills), the differentiated predisposition to competition has not been observed in stereotypically “female” tasks (e.g. relying on memory or verbal skills). Research into this treatment-effect has been relatively scarce, with only a limited number of studies aimed at experimentally verifying its effects. Based on the previous literature, we identify three possible mechanisms driving this treatment-effect: females under-select into competition as they perform worse in male tasks (“gender-treatment performance differences”), they under-select into competition as a result of pessimistic beliefs regarding their opportunity to succeed in male competitive environments (“biased estimates”), or females could have an selective aversion towards competing against males in a male task (a gender-task performance bias). In the present research, we develop five formal models (two benchmark models and three treatment-specific models) aimed at capturing these mechanisms. The behavioral predictions of these models are empirically verified in a setup similar to the one utilized by Niederle and Versterlund (2007), with the modification of two treatments: memory versus maze. In the first treatment, subjects (n=39) interact in a female task (memory game), whilst subjects in the second treatment (n=27) interact in a stereotypically male task (maze-solving). Based on the empirical results, we observe that the biased-estimates model (notably in the form of hot-state confidence) provides the best fit of the observed data. As a result, this implies that females under-select into competition in male (but not female) tasks due to a more pessimistic view regarding their probability to win tournaments in these circumstances. These results provide a deeper understanding of the gender-bias in competitiveness in specific and the gender-wage gap in general. In turn, this knowledge allows for a more detailed set of policy-implications.