Gender differences in the representation among high profile jobs as well as in certain fields are substantial. Standard economic explanations for such occupational differences include differences in preferences for work hours and responsibilities, differences in ability, as well as discrimination. In a previous study the researchers showed that occupational differences are likely to prevail absent these factors. The reason is that even on a leveled playing field, men and women differ in their preference for competitive environments. Men are found to be twice as likely as women to select a competitive over a non-competitive compensation, and a gender gap in choices remains when controlling for performance, confidence and risk aversion. While women shy away from competition men compete too much. Such gender differences not only reduce the number of women who enter tournaments, but also those who win tournaments. Hence it decreases the chance of women succeeding in competition for promotions and more lucrative jobs.
While demonstrating substantial gender differences in competitive attitudes sheds light on what may cause occupational differences between men and women, it also raises a series of new questions. In particular, absent a better understanding of what may cause or affect such differences, it is by no means clear what can be done to improve the representation of high-productivity women in top-managerial positions.
In this study two different approaches are used to better understand what affects the compensation choices of men and women. The first approach examines what may cause differences in competitive attitudes. Specifically, the study examines how such differences develop from childhood through adolescence, and whether the differences depend on the equality between men and women in the country where the individual lives. The second approach investigates if there are institutions that not only cause men and women to make more similar compensation choices, but also choices that provide them with a larger monetary payoff. In a prior study, researchers found that too few high-productivity women and too many low productivity men entered the tournament; the current study attempts to whether changing the institutions can encourages these individuals to make payoff-superior compensation choices. Initially, the potential effects of affirmative action are examined. Then, in addition to studying "common" affirmative action rules, the study assesses what may be viewed as an extreme of such a system--single-sex tournaments. Furthermore, the study also determines whether institutions that provide better feedback to participants may improve their decisions. Finally, the study assesses whether competitive attitudes differ when individuals compete in groups against other groups, rather than as individuals. Since women frequently are found to be more cooperative than men, it may be that they are more willing to compete when doing so in a group of people.
Broader Impacts: While much work has been done to explain the occupational gender differences, the innovation in this study is the use of controlled experiments to demonstrate that a role may be played by differences in competitive attitudes. Understanding what affects an individual's willingness to compete is expected to lead to further understanding of what may be done to improve the representation of high-productivity women in top positions. Such practical insights have broad implications for society as a whole.
