This paper reviews the literature on gender differences in economic experiments. In the three main sections, we identify robust differences in risk preferences, social (other-regarding) preferences, and competitive preferences. We also speculate on the source of these differences, as well as on their implications. Our hope is that this article will serve as a resource for those seeking to understand gender differences and to use as a starting point to illuminate the debate on gender-specific outcomes in the labor and goods markets.

/pdf/gender-differences-in-preferences-1wffy691ko.pdf

Gender Differences in Preferences

Using Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) microdata over the 1980-2010 period, we provide new empirical evidence on the extent of and trends in the gender wage gap, which declined considerably during this time. By 2010, conventional human capital variables taken together explained little of the gender wage gap, while gender differences in occupation and industry continued to be important. Moreover, the gender pay gap declined much more slowly at the top of the wage distribution than at the middle or bottom and by 2010 was noticeably higher at the top. We then survey the literature to identify what has been learned about the explanations for the gap. We conclude that many of the traditional explanations continue to have salience. Although human-capital factors are now relatively unimportant in the aggregate, women's work force interruptions and shorter hours remain significant in high-skilled occupations, possibly due to compensating differentials. Gender differences in occupations and industries, as well as differences in gender roles and the gender division of labor remain important, and research based on experimental evidence strongly suggests that discrimination cannot be discounted. Psychological attributes or noncognitive skills comprise one of the newer explanations for gender differences in outcomes. Our effort to assess the quantitative evidence on the importance of these factors suggests that they account for a small to moderate portion of the gender pay gap, considerably smaller than, say, occupation and industry effects, though they appear to modestly contribute to these differences.

/pdf/the-gender-wage-gap-extent-trends-and-explanations-3m2c5a7dft.pdf

The Gender Wage Gap: Extent, Trends, and Explanations

Using PSID microdata over the 1980-2010, we provide new empirical evidence on the extent of and trends in the gender wage gap, which declined considerably over this period. By 2010, conventional human capital variables taken together explained little of the gender wage gap, while gender differences in occupation and industry continued to be important. Moreover, the gender pay gap declined much more slowly at the top of the wage distribution that at the middle or the bottom and by 2010 was noticeably higher at the top. We then survey the literature to identify what has been learned about the explanations for the gap. We conclude that many of the traditional explanations continue to have salience. Although human capital factors are now relatively unimportant in the aggregate, women’s work force interruptions and shorter hours remain significant in high skilled occupations, possibly due to compensating differentials. Gender differences in occupations and industries, as well as differences in gender roles and the gender division of labor remain important, and research based on experimental evidence strongly suggests that discrimination cannot be discounted. Psychological attributes or noncognitive skills comprise one of the newer explanations for gender differences in outcomes. Our effort to assess the quantitative evidence on the importance of these factors suggests that they account for a small to moderate portion of the gender pay gap, considerably smaller than say occupation and industry effects, though they appear to modestly contribute to these differences.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/dp9656.pdf?abstractid=2716597&mirid=1

Obstetrics and gynecology.

Laboratory studies have documented that women often respond less favorably to competition than men. Conditional on performance, men are often more eager to compete, and the performance of men tends to respond more positively to an increase in competition. This means that few women enter and win competitions. We review studies that examine the robustness of these differences as well the factors that may give rise to them. Both laboratory and field studies largely confirm these initial findings, showing that gender differences in competitiveness tend to result from differences in overconfidence and in attitudes toward competition. Gender differences in risk aversion, however, seem to play a smaller and less robust role. We conclude by asking what could and should be done to encourage qualified males and females to compete.

/pdf/gender-and-competition-3vf2vag05o.pdf

Gender and Competition

Gender differences in competitiveness are often discussed as a potential explanation for gender differences in education and labor market outcomes We correlate an incentivized measure of competitiveness with an important career choice of secondary school students in the Netherlands At the age of 15, these students have to pick one out of four study profiles, which vary in how prestigious they are While boys and girls have very similar levels of academic ability, boys are substantially more likely than girls to choose more prestigious profiles We find that competitiveness is as important a predictor of profile choice as gender More importantly, up to 23 percent of the gender difference in profile choice can be attributed to gender differences in competitiveness This lends support to the extrapolation of laboratory findings on competitiveness to labor market settings

Gender, Competitiveness and Career Choices

Gender differences in competitiveness have been hypothesized as a potential explanation for gender differences in education and labor market outcomes. We examine the predictive power of a standard laboratory experimental measure of competitiveness for the later important choice of academic track of secondary school students in the Netherlands. Although boys and girls display similar levels of academic ability, boys choose substantially more prestigious academic tracks, where more prestigious tracks are more math- and science-intensive. Our experimental measure shows that boys are also substantially more competitive than girls. We find that competitiveness is strongly positively correlated with choosing more prestigious academic tracks even conditional on academic ability. Most important, we find that the gender difference in competitiveness accounts for a substantial portion (about 20%) of the gender difference in track choice

/pdf/gender-competitiveness-and-career-choices-5fu6jar2is.pdf

Gender, Competitiveness, and Career Choices*

Willingness to compete has been found to predict individual and gender differences in educational choices and labor market outcomes. We provide further evidence for this relationship by linking Swiss students' Baccalaureate school (high school) specialization choices to an experimental measure of willingness to compete. Boys are more likely to specialize in math in Baccalaureate school. In line with previous findings, competitive students are more likely to choose a math specialization. Boys are more likely to opt for competition than girls and this gender difference in competitiveness could partially explain why girls are less likely to choose a math-intensive specialization.

/pdf/gender-competitiveness-and-study-choices-in-high-school-3dyhacx3nl.pdf

Gender, Competitiveness, and Study Choices in High School: Evidence from Switzerland

We examine whether competitiveness in women is influenced by biological factors. Female participants in a laboratory experiment solve a simple arithmetics task first under a piece rate and then under a competitive tournament scheme. Participants can then choose which compensation scheme to apply in a third round. We find that the likelihood of selecting into the competitive environment varies strongly and significantly over the menstrual cycle and with the intake of hormonal contraceptives. The observed patterns are consistent with a negative impact of the sex hormone progesterone on competitiveness. We show that the effect of the menstrual cycle and hormonal contraceptives on competitiveness is due neither to an impact on performance, nor to an impact on risk aversion or overconfidence.

/pdf/the-impact-of-the-menstrual-cycle-and-hormonal-2iks59pow9.pdf

The impact of the menstrual cycle and hormonal contraceptives on competitiveness

How do people react to setbacks and successes? I use a laboratory experiment to determine the effect of winning and losing in a competition on the willingness to seek further challenges. Participan...

/pdf/the-impact-of-losing-in-a-competition-on-the-willingness-to-pva6adr409.pdf

Thomas Buser

Papers

Gender, Competitiveness and Career Choices

Gender, Competitiveness, and Career Choices*

Gender, Competitiveness, and Study Choices in High School: Evidence from Switzerland

The impact of the menstrual cycle and hormonal contraceptives on competitiveness

The Impact of Losing in a Competition on the Willingness to Seek Further Challenges