Experimental Design
We use a between- subject design in an individual decision-making study. Each participant is randomly assigned to one treatment and will earn at least 5€. A session comprises 16 participants, divided into 4 gender-balanced groups.
The experiment comprises 3 parts.
In the first part of the experiment, participants fill in a short demographic survey. They are asked their gender, whether they were born in Ile De France and whether their average daily commuting time is above or below 30 minutes. This information is used to create a CV for each participant. After filling the form, participants are asked to choose a fictitious name that will be used as an individual identifier throughout the experiment. Participants who report being women select from a list of female names, with each chosen name removed from the list to prevent duplicates. Similarly, those who report being men pick from a list of male names, ensuring no two participants have the same name.
In the second part of the experiment, participants perform the real-effort task individually, to get familiarized with the task.
They are presented with four 10x10 matrices filled with 0s and 1s. They are given 30 seconds per matrix to count the number of 0s. They earn 1 point if they correctly count the number of 0s in the matrix.
In the third part of the experiment, participants perform three rounds of the real-effort task in pairs.
We allow them to choose their partner before each round. More precisely, they are presented with 4 gender-balanced CVs, each representing a participant from their session. Each CV contains the fictitious name chosen by the participant, as well as their gender, whether they were born in Ile de France, and whether their daily average commuting time is below or above 30 minutes. We randomize the order in which CVs appear (whether a female or a male CV appears first) across rounds. Participants are presented with different CVs across the rounds.
Participants rank the 4 CVs from 1 (most preferred partner) to 4 (least preferred partner). Rankings are used to match participants in pairs, following a simple strategy-proof procedure. One participant is chosen at random and is assigned to their top-ranked partner. Another participant is then randomly selected. This participant is paired with their top-ranked partner. If that partner is already paired, the participant is paired with their next preferred choice. This process continues until everyone is paired.
Participants are then informed of their partner's identity, receiving the fictitious name assigned to their partner. Before beginning the counting task, they are asked to estimate both their own and their partner's performance from the previous round. These guesses are incentivized: participants earn 1 point for each correct prediction.
After making their guesses, they start the real-effort task. They count 6 tables filled with 0s and 1s.
Both partners see the same table filled with 0s and 1s. They both have 30 seconds to count all the 0s. One partner's answer is randomly chosen as the team's response. If this answer is correct, both earn 1 point; if not, both earn 0 points.
At the end of the round, participants are asked how much they enjoyed performing the task with their partner.
We vary the type of feedback received across treatments:
In treatment 0, participants are informed after each table whether the selected group's answer is correct. The identity of the partner whose answer was selected is not revealed.
As in Treatment 0, participants in Treatment 1 are informed after each table whether the selected group's answer is correct. If the group's answer is correct, the identity of the partner whose answer was selected remains undisclosed. However, the identity of the partner is revealed if the group's answer is incorrect, making individual errors more visible.
Treatment 2 expands upon Treatment 1 by rendering individual mistakes even more visible. Not only is the name of the team member revealed for an incorrect answer, but this treatment also introduces an interactive component: the other team member selects a message from a list and send it to their partner in response to the error. The list contains 4 messages, which vary by the emphasis put on the mistake. Participants are presented with 2 comprehensive messages "No stress, this matrix can be tricky!", "Don’t worry, mistakes happen!"; and two messages that hold the partner more accountable for the mistake: "I know it’s tough, but try to focus more.", "It’s crucial to get the exact count, you should try another counting method."
At the end of the experiment, participants perform a post-experimental survey, which consists of 3 parts.
The first part consists of incentivized guesses about performance, to test whether men and women are perceived as performing equally well in the counting task. Participants are told that in a previous session, two female players were assigned the names "Jade" and "Louise"; and two male players the names "Gabriel" and "Léo". They are asked to rank them from highest performer (rank 1st) to lowest performer (rank 4th). They can give the same rank to different players. They earn 1 point for each correct rank.
The second part asks participants to indicate how useful each trait (name, gender, region of origin, commuting time) was for ranking the CVs.
The third part consists of questions aimed at measuring participants' sensitivity to negative evaluation and punishment.
At the end of the session they are paid in cash, depending on the number of points they have accumulated throughout the experiment, with 1 point corresponding to 1 euro.