Gender Homophily in Team Formation

Update to the original experiment (AEARCTR-0012546, March 14, 2024)

We completed the experiment described in the original registration, with two additions to the initial design.

First, we added a fourth treatment, Treatment 3, which reverses the logic of Treatment 1 by making successful individual performance salient rather than mistakes. If the selected answer is correct, the name of the team member whose answer was selected is disclosed to the other participant. If the selected answer is incorrect, no individual-specific information is revealed.

The resulting experiment includes 512 participants, corresponding to four treatments, eight sessions per treatment, and 16 participants per session. Each session includes eight women and eight men, divided into four groups of two women and two men.

Second, we use performance in Round 0 as a predetermined measure of individual performance. In Round 0, participants complete the task individually, before any team interaction or feedback. They count the number of zeros in four matrices and receive no feedback on their performance. We use this measure to distinguish between high- and low-performing participants.

In the completed experiment, we find no evidence of gender homophily, on average, among men. However, we document gender homophily among women, which is driven by high-performing women. This pattern is constant across feedback regimes and is not explained by gender differences in performance or by gender differences in beliefs about performance.

These findings motivate a new extension designed to examine whether gender homophily among high-performing women persists when information on the performance of potential partners in Round 0 is disclosed.

2024-03-25

2026-12-20

- Our primary focus is examining homophily through participants' ranking of potential partner CVs. We will test whether women assign higher ranks to female CVs, and men to male CVs. We will retain the gender homophily index used in the original experiment (see explanations).

- Our interest is in how gender homophily changes with the gender gap in performance. We illustrate our theoretical predictions using the case of female homophily among high-performing women. Predictions with gender gap in performance (see explanations).

- We will track individual and team performance, along with beliefs regarding personal and partner's performance.

- Post-experiment, we will also collect information on participants' sensitivity to negative evaluation and punishment.

- Gender Homophily index
We will retain the gender-homophily index used in the original experiment.
Each participant assigns ranks from 1 to 4 to two same-gender and two opposite-gender CVs. We assign Borda scores
s(r) = 3 if r = 1; 2 if r = 2; 1 if r = 3; 0 if r = 4
The gender-homophily index is
Gᵢ = s(rᵢ⁽¹⁾) + s(rᵢ⁽²⁾)
where rᵢ⁽¹⁾ and rᵢ⁽²⁾ are the ranks assigned to the two same-gender potential partners.
The index ranges from 1 to 5, with higher values indicating greater gender homophily.
We will use this aggregate measure to examine whether average homophily changes when information on potential partners' performance becomes available.

- Predictions with gender gap in performance: When male CVs display relatively higher performance than female CVs.
Case 1: Female homophily decreases with the gender gap in performance
This pattern would be consistent with lexicographic preferences: performance first; gender otherwise.
Case 2: Female homophily does not respond to the gender gap in performance
This pattern would be consistent with preference-based homophily that persists despite differences in potential partners’ performance.
Case 3: Female homophily increases with the gender gap in performance
This pattern would be consistent with motives such as gender inequality aversion or altruistic motives toward female partners.

In the completed experiment, we find no evidence of gender homophily, on average, among men. However, we document gender homophily among women, which is driven by high-performing women. This pattern is constant across feedback regimes and is not explained by gender differences in performance or by gender differences in beliefs about performance.

These findings motivate an extension designed to examine whether gender homophily among high-performing women persists when information on the performance of potential partners in Round 0 is displayed.

The extension keeps the experimental setting as close as possible to the original design but adds predetermined performance to the information displayed in potential partners' CVs.

As in the original experiment, participants first complete Round 0 individually and without feedback (Treatment 0). They then complete three rounds of partner rankings. In each round, participants rank four CVs, two females and two males, from most to least preferred. Motivated by the fact that CV rankings are stable across rounds, we randomly select one of the three rounds for implementation, and participants are matched according to their ranking in that round to perform the collective task in pairs.

The main difference with the original experiment is that each CV additionally reports the potential partner's performance in Round 0. The main question is whether high-performing women continue to prefer female partners when male potential partners perform better.

Not available

computer program

session

No

450 participants.

200 participants.

200 additional participants in the control treatment, with predetermined performance displayed in the CVs.