AEA RCT Registry

NEW UPDATE: Completed trials may now upload and register supplementary documents (e.g. null results reports, populated pre-analysis plans, or post-trial results reports) in the Post Trial section under Reports, Papers, & Other Materials.

Addressing gender biases and social identity in the technology sector in Peru

Last registered on May 03, 2016

View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title

Addressing gender biases and social identity in the technology sector in Peru

RCT ID

AEARCTR-0001176

Initial registration date

May 03, 2016

Last updated

May 03, 2016 8:51 AM EDT

Location(s)

Country

Peru

Region

Latin America

Primary Investigator

Name

Lucia Del Carpio

Affiliation

INSEAD

Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name

Maria Guadalupe

PI Affiliation

INSEAD

Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status

On going

Start date

2016-02-03

End date

2016-07-31

Keywords

Education, Labor

Additional Keywords

Social identity, social norms, gender biases, technology

JEL code(s)

Secondary IDs

Abstract

Social identity considerations and norms may affect behavior and preferences of disadvantaged groups, perpetuating gaps in economic outcomes. In this research, we want to understand whether there are any pre-existing biases or missing information that preclude women from attempting to apply for training and a career in the high growth technology sector in Peru. These could come from misperceptions on women’s abilities to pursue a career in the tech sector, or from lack of role models or appropriate networks. In order to understand what are the barriers to pursuing a career in the tech sector, we are randomly varying the recruitment message to potential interested applicants to a 5 month “coding” bootcamp and leadership training program, offered only to women. In addition to a control group message with generic information, in a treatment message, we correct misperceptions about women’s abilities to pursue a career in technology, provide role models and highlight the fact that the program is offered solely to women. Our aim is to measure any differences in application rates between the two groups of applicants. These will indicate to what extent the different hypothesized barriers are at work in this setting. In partnership with the training provider, we also will be able to identify differences in the characteristics of applicants (in terms of cognitive and non-cognitive abilities), to shed light on how the barriers operate for different individuals. We are in the process of evaluating the results of the first experiment in Arequipa, while we are currently launching larger experiments in Lima and Mexico.

External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation

Del Carpio, Lucia and Maria Guadalupe. 2016. "Addressing gender biases and social identity in the technology sector in Peru." AEA RCT Registry. May 03. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.1176-1.0.

Former Citation

Del Carpio, Lucia, Lucia Del Carpio and Maria Guadalupe. 2016. "Addressing gender biases and social identity in the technology sector in Peru." AEA RCT Registry. May 03. http://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/1176/history/8052.

Sponsors & Partners

Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)

We have partnered with a non-profit organization (NGO) that empowers women youth from low-income backgrounds in Peru, Mexico and Chile with education and employment in the tech sector. Potential candidates apply to participate in the program. A selection process assesses each participant, first through several written exams that evaluate interpersonal characteristics as well as logic and math skills, and then by a personal interview that evaluates traits like perseverance and commitment. Selected candidates then go through an immersive five-month coding bootcamp and are at the end connected with tech companies in need for talented coders.

In order to understand what are the barriers to pursuing a career in the tech sector, our intervention randomly varies the recruitment message to potential interested applicants. In addition to a control group message with generic information, in a treatment message, we correct misperceptions about women’s abilities to pursue a career in technology, provide role models and highlight the fact that the program is solely for women.

Intervention Start Date

2016-02-03

Intervention End Date

2016-05-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)

We measure differences in application rates and show up ratios to the examination sessions. We also identify differences in the characteristics of applicants (in terms of cognitive and non-cognitive abilities) as well as gender biases through various tests performed in the examination sessions.

Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)

Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

We randomize the information provided in the NGO’s program application webpage which in both cases ends in a registration form. Traffic to the registration webpage comes from different sources. The main one is social media where the NGO advertises its program. In addition, the program also gets publicity in radio, TV, newspapers, and other local media. In all cases, interested applicants are directed to the application/registration webpage.

Experimental Design Details

Randomization Method

Randomization done with the VWO software.

Randomization Unit

Individual (unique clicks)

Was the treatment clustered?

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters

Sample size: planned number of observations

6000

Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms

3000 individuals control, 3000 individuals treatment

Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)

Assuming a total traffic of N=6000 (unique) clicks in the recruitment webpage, and a baseline (control) application rate of 6%, we are able to detect a MDE of 0.08 standard deviation. Assuming a baseline (control) show-up ratio to the examination sessions of 40% (of those registered), we are able to detect MDE of approximately 0.25 standard deviation. For the various test scores, we are able to detect MDE of between 0.30 and 0.35 standard deviation.

Supporting Documents and Materials

IRB

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)

IRB Name

INSEAD Internal Review Board

IRB Approval Date

2015-11-13

IRB Approval Number

Tracked by Title: Technology and Leadership Training for Women in Peru

Analysis Plan