Gender and the Labor Market: What Have We Learned from (original) (raw)
Related papers
Does the Gender Mix Among Employers Influence Who Gets Hired? A Labor Market Experiment
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000
We consider in this paper whether the gender mix at the level of decisionmakers in firms can influence gender representation at the employee level. We run a laboratory experiment whereby we present a pair of independent employers with applications from two potential employees. We consider whether the gender of the other employer will influence an employer's hiring decision. We find that the gender mix among employers plays a role in the individual hiring decisions of female members. Female employers when paired with a male employer are more likely to choose a female applicant over an equally competent male applicant. Results of an Implicit Association Test (IAT) and answers to a post-experimental questionnaire show that explicit beliefs about relative gender performance are significantly associated with the observed hiring bias, while implicit attitudes do not appear to play a role.
Gender Differences in Behavioral Traits and Labor Market Outcomes
The Oxford Handbook of Women and the Economy, 2017
Despite a policy push toward equality, substantial gender gaps in earnings and vertical gender segregation persist in the labor market. Studies point to gender-specific occupational sorting as one of the primary explanatory factors. But why do men and women sort into different careers? In this chapter, we document the evidence that suggests that gender differences along four behavioral traits may offer a plausible explanation. Specifically, the consensus in the literature is that women, on average, exhibit greater risk aversion, lower levels of competitiveness, and less desire to negotiate as compared to men. Gender differences in social preferences are less robust, but women appear to be more sensitive to social context and framing. Importantly, there is no conclusive evidence on whether these differences are inherent or societal for any of the individual traits, although most studies point to the latter.
Gender and Choice over Co-workers: Experimental Evidence
Social Science Research Network, 2021
We study whether choice over co-workers matters for performance in gender-diverse teams. We carried out a lab-in-the-field experiment where students were randomly assigned co-workers meant to help them perform on tests. Co-worker allocation was randomized on two dimensions: (1) gender and (2) student preference for that co-worker at baseline. We find that randomly chosen male co-workers reduce the performance of females (12 % of the average score), while preferred male co-workers have a positive yet statistically insignificant effect (6% of the average score). These effects are heterogeneous across the gender stereotype of the questions and materialize even though the two types of male co-workers have the same average ability. To investigate the mechanism behind these effects, we randomly allocated hints as an additional source of information across questions. We find that some (but not all) of these differences are driven by difficulty in accessing those hints in the presence of random male co-workers.
The Journal of applied psychology, 2015
Gender bias continues to be a concern in many work settings, leading researchers to identify factors that influence workplace decisions. In this study we examine several of these factors, using an organizing framework of sex distribution within jobs (including male- and female-dominated jobs as well as sex-balanced, or integrated, jobs). We conducted random effects meta-analyses including 136 independent effect sizes from experimental studies (N = 22,348) and examined the effects of decision-maker gender, amount and content of information available to the decision maker, type of evaluation, and motivation to make careful decisions on gender bias in organizational decisions. We also examined study characteristics such as type of participant, publication year, and study design. Our findings revealed that men were preferred for male-dominated jobs (i.e., gender-role congruity bias), whereas no strong preference for either gender was found for female-dominated or integrated jobs. Second...
SociologyRN: Gender & Work (Topic), 2013
Common examples of perceived workplace inequality – the “glass ceiling,” the “gender gap” in compensation, and occupational segregation among others – cannot be well understood if the explanation proffered for their existence is limited exclusively to social causes such as discrimination and sexist socialization. Males and females have, on average, different sets of talents, tastes, and interests, which cause them to select somewhat different occupations and exhibit somewhat different workplace behaviors. Some of these sex differences have biological roots. Temperamental sex differences are found in competitiveness, dominance-seeking, risk-taking, and nurturance, with females tending to be more “person-oriented” and males more “thing-oriented.” The sexes also differ in a variety of cognitive traits, including various spatial, verbal, mathematical, and mechanical abilities. Although social influences can be important, these social influences operate on (and were in fact created by) s...
Constructing gender differences in the economics lab
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2012
We study the effects of experimental design on male and female behavior in a dictator game. Following social identity theory we investigate how experimental procedure may affect outcome through gender priming, i.e. the activation of gender stereotypes specifying that women behave altruistically and men egoistically. We prime subjects by asking them to indicate their gender in a questionnaire, before playing the game. In our experiment, such gender priming is effective (i.e. creates a gender difference in generosity) in gendermixed environments, but not in single-sex environments. Further, men are more sensitive to priming than women are.
Gender Discrimination in Hiring: Evidence from a Cross-National Harmonized Field Experiment
European Sociological Review, 2021
Gender discrimination is often regarded as an important driver of women's disadvantage in the labour market, yet earlier studies show mixed results. However, because different studies employ different research designs, the estimates of discrimination cannot be compared across countries. By utilizing data from the first harmonized comparative field experiment on gender discrimination in hiring in six countries, we can directly compare employers' callbacks to fictitious male and female applicants. The countries included vary in a number of key institutional, economic, and cultural dimensions, yet we found no sign of discrimination against women. This cross-national finding constitutes an important and robust piece of evidence. Second, we found discrimination against men in Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK, and no discrimination against men in Norway and the United States. However, in the pooled data the gender gradient hardly differs across countries. Our findings suggest that although employers operate in quite different institutional contexts, they regard female applicants as more suitable for jobs in female-dominated occupations, ceteris paribus, while we find no evidence that they regard male applicants as more suitable anywhere.
Gender bias remains a serious problem in the workplace. In order to begin addressing this complex issue, we must isolate the factors that influence these inequalities. Is one such factor political ideology? If so, how does it relate to these inequalities? Research methods used in previous and relevant studies were modified in order to explore this issue. The current research used fictional samples of applicant information and mock interview transcripts in order to simulate a hiring process (Hoyt, 2011 ). In order to show differences in attitudes, both the sex of the applicant and their prospective occupations were manipulated. More specifically, each participant was randomly assigned to read through one of the four possible applicant transcripts. Then, applicant hireability and participant political ideology were assessed. The hypothesis is that, when compared to liberals, conservatives would be less likely to hire men and women for gender atypical positions than gender stereotypical positions. Results were contrary to this hypothesis, however. Implications are discussed.
Gender Matching and Competitiveness: Experimental Evidence
Economic Inquiry, 2011
This paper experimentally investigates if and how people's competitiveness depends on their own gender and on the gender of people with whom they interact. Participants are given information about the gender of the co-participant they are matched with, they then choose between a tournament or a piece rate payment scheme, and finally perform a real task. As already observed in the literature, we find that significantly more men than women choose the tournament. The gender of the co-participant directly influences men's choices (men compete less against other men than against women), but only when the gender information is made sufficiently salient. A higher predicted competitiveness of women induces more competition. Giving stronger tournament incentives, or allowing the participants to choose the gender of their co-participant, increases women's willingness to compete, but does not close the gender gap in competitiveness.