Pushing Back On Leaning In? Evidence of Backlash towards Self-Promoting Women

Last registered on April 12, 2018
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Pushing Back On Leaning In? Evidence of Backlash towards Self-Promoting Women
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0002870
Initial registration date
April 08, 2018

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
April 09, 2018, 12:34 PM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Last updated
April 12, 2018, 11:12 AM EDT

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.

Locations

Country
United States of America
Region

Primary Investigator

Name
Ketki Sheth
Affiliation
UC Merced
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Shanthi Manian
PI Affiliation
Washington State University
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2018-04-09
End date
2019-06-15
Keywords
Labor
Additional Keywords
JEL code(s)
Secondary IDs
Abstract
This study explores whether advice and leadership is more effective when by provided by men versus women. We additionally explore whether the language used in the provision of advice, changes how subjects respond to male and female leadership.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Manian, Shanthi and Ketki Sheth. 2018. "Pushing Back On Leaning In? Evidence of Backlash towards Self-Promoting Women." AEA RCT Registry. April 12. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.2870-2.0
Former Citation
Manian, Shanthi and Ketki Sheth. 2018. "Pushing Back On Leaning In? Evidence of Backlash towards Self-Promoting Women." AEA RCT Registry. April 12. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/2870/history/28132
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
We implement a lab experiment in which subjects are paired with unseen leaders. The primary activity in the experiment is for the subject to play 10 rounds of a difficult logic game (in which better performance is rewarded by higher compensation). During the game, the subject is provided good advice on how to improve their expected performance by their leader.
Intervention Start Date
2018-04-09
Intervention End Date
2018-08-15

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Our primary outcome is whether the subject follows the advice provided by their leader.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
We additionally are interested in how the subject evaluates their leader (measured by their belief in the leader's ability, their decision to have their leader play a game in which the subject is compensated based on the leader's performance, and a series of questions in which they are evaluating their leader), whether they prefer to continue to work with their leader, recall of their leader's advice, and their own feeling of power/control.

We are interested in heterogeneous effects by subject gender, exposure to female supervisors, and gender attitudes.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Gender Attitudes, Self Assessment of Power, and Evaluation of Leader will all be constructed by creating a summary index (as in Anderson 2008).

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Our experimental design is for the characteristics of the unseen leader to be randomized along the following dimensions: gender and language. The subject is randomly assigned a female or male leader, and the type of language used in the advice provided (self-deprecating, neutral, self-promotional).
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization done for each subject based on coded randomizer in our Qualtrics survey (the platform of the experimental game).
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
200 to 600 individuals
Sample size: planned number of observations
200 - 600 individuals
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
We expect 33 to 100 subjects for each treatment arm.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
UC Merced IRB
IRB Approval Date
2018-03-16
IRB Approval Number
UCM2018-14
Analysis Plan

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
No
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials