Are women less demanding? And if so, why?

Last registered on October 23, 2022


Trial Information

General Information

Are women less demanding? And if so, why?
Initial registration date
October 13, 2022

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
October 17, 2022, 5:21 PM EDT

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

Last updated
October 23, 2022, 6:49 AM EDT

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



Primary Investigator

Paderborn University

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
Paderborn University

Additional Trial Information

In development
Start date
End date
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
In diverse teams, women may get less credit and pay than men for joint output. We inquire to what extent this is the case even in a non-discriminatory and non-gendered environment. A potential reason may be that women are less willing to claim joint output.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Horst, Ingolf and Wendelin Schnedler. 2022. "Are women less demanding? And if so, why?." AEA RCT Registry. October 23.
Experimental Details


The intervention is that subjects can directly determine who gets the larger share of the joint output (as opposed to determining it in a stylized negotation).

(Initially, we wanted to study this intervention jointly with the knowledge whether they performed better or worse than their partner before they decide on the share of the output. We then wanted to separate out the effect of both interventions in case that we found one. When we saw the low registration numbers for our experiment, we decided to only focus on one intervention because we were afraid that we would later not be able to have enough subjects to separate both interventions.)
Intervention Start Date
Intervention End Date

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Frequency with which higher share of joint output is demanded
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
The frequency can be directly observed.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Intensity with which higher share of joint output is demanded
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
The intensity can be directly observed.

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
In pairs, subjects engage anonymously in a real effort task. After this task, they can either claim 60% or 40% of the team output for themselves. The design is stripped of any exterior motive. In particular, subjects do not know the gender of their team partner.
Experimental Design Details
Subjects are asked to correctly solve as many as possible of 10 quiz questions. They are paired and the product of correct answers counts as their team output. The team with the highest output gets the largest prize. After the task but before knowing the prize, subjects decide in an incentive compatible way whether they want 60% or 40% of the prize. They can also specify, how much they insist on their proposal. We also elicit what subjects think about their performance in an incentive compatible way.
Randomization Method
coin flip
Randomization Unit
Randomization Unit is one experimental session.
Was the treatment clustered?

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
Sample size: planned number of observations
12 Sessions of about 30 subjects, leading to a total of about 360 subjects. We are trying to ensure that half of the participants are male and the other half female by stratifying and reserving half of the places for each gender.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
180 subjects control
180 subjects joint intervention
(only if interventions turn out to jointly have an effect, we will extend the study and run a treatment with the first intervention only in order to separate out both effects)
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
if we are able to fill all our sessions and half of the subjects are male, we have about 90 male and 90 female subjects in each treatment. For a gender gap to be detected with a power of 95% and a significance level of 5% using a one-sided Mann-Whitney-U test (when the original is a normal distribution), the minimal detectable effect size would have to be about 0.5. Our interest is, of course, also whether this gender gap changes across treatments. As a lower benchmark, we may look at the power of the treatment effect within each gender. With roughly 90 observations in each treatment using once more a Mann-Whitney-U test and requiring a power of 95% and a significance level of 5%, we get the same detectable effect size of roughly 0.5.

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Paderborn University Ethics Board
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number


Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

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

Request Information


Is the intervention completed?
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials