Civil Service Decision-making. Do advisor and advisee gender matter?

Last registered on May 30, 2023
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Civil Service Decision-making. Do advisor and advisee gender matter?
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0010391
Initial registration date
November 10, 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
December 14, 2022, 2:03 PM EST

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

Last updated
May 30, 2023, 9:29 AM EDT

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

Locations

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

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Name
Ranil Dissanayake
Affiliation
Center for Global Development / Blavatnik School of Government
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Pieter Serneels
PI Affiliation
University of East Anglia
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Benedetta Musillo
PI Affiliation
UK Government
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2022-11-14
End date
2023-11-30
Keywords
Behavior, Gender, Governance
Additional Keywords
JEL code(s)
J16, D73, D91
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Under-representation by gender or other characteristics is receiving increased attention, both in policy-making and research (Allgood et al. 2019). Diversity is seen as highly desirable, for reasons of fairness and representation, and because it brings with it more varied perspectives, which in turn enhances innovation (Ann Hewlett, Marshall, and Sherbin 2013; Heaton and Aminossehe 2020). It can improve the quality of policymaking on the supply side. Constraints to diversity on the demand side, and their consequences, have received less attention. We investigate whether such constraints on the demand side exist, and need addressing to realize the benefits of diversity. Using a survey experiment we assess whether perceived, quality, valuation, and take-up of professional advice depends on the identity of the provider, and test and explore channels through which this works. We also investigate whether the supply of advice depends on the gender of the commissioning party.

Our setting is a UK Government department that represent a high-stakes policy environment. We use experimentally varied survey vignettes to investigate if gender of the involved parties matters for civil service decision making. Specifically, we examine if decisions made on the basis of new information and analysis depends on the identity of the source providing this information, as well as or instead of its perceived quality. We investigate two sets of questions. Firstly, do decisions made in the organization vary according to the gender of technical advisers? Secondly, if there is such a bias, is it mitigated by the style and type of advice given, specifically if advice is more or less conscientious and detailed?
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Dissanayake, Ranil, Benedetta Musillo and Pieter Serneels. 2023. "Civil Service Decision-making. Do advisor and advisee gender matter?." AEA RCT Registry. May 30. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.10391-2.1
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2022-11-14
Intervention End Date
2023-11-30

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Demand side analysis:
- Likelihood of take up, measured by updating of decisions: We measure how the response to the question “How likely are you to make a medium-sized investment in this programme?” changes after the receipt of advice from an adviser (gender and conscientiousness of the advice randomized), The question is answered on a 4 point scale (Very unlike to very Likely), and updating is measured on a 7 point scale where 0 is no change -3 is shifting three spots towards less likely, and 3 is a three point increase in likeliness).
- Likelihood of take up, measured by updating of confidence in decision: We measure how the response to the follow-up question “How confident are you in this decision” changes after the receipt of advice from an adviser (gender and conscientiousness of the advice randomized), The question is answered on a 5 point scale (Very unlike to very Likely, with a neutral option), and updating is measured on a 8 point scale where 0 is no change -4 is shifting four spots towards less confident, and 4 is a four point increase in confidence).
- Willingness to pay for advice: respondents are asked how much they would pay for the advice provided, had it been commissioned from a paid external adviser (0-10000).
- Perceived advice quality, measured on a 0-10 scale.
Supply side analysis:
- Confidence in offering advice: in our supply of advice vignette, we ask respondents how confident they feel to volunteer a response to a question made by their management board. This is measured on a 1-5 scale, from not confident at all to very confident, with a neutral option.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We implement a randomized survey experiment, using vignettes designed to investigate if decisions made on the basis of new information and analysis depends on the identity of the source providing this information, as well as or instead of its perceived quality.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomization done in office by a computer
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
3000 individuals
Sample size: planned number of observations
3000 individuals
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
750 per 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
Blavatnik School of Government (University of Oxford Social Sciences Division)
IRB Approval Date
2022-04-19
IRB Approval Number
SSD/CUREC1A/BSG_C1A-20-13
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information