Climbing up the career ladder: An examination of gender differences in successive challenge seeking

Last registered on December 21, 2023
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Climbing up the career ladder: An examination of gender differences in successive challenge seeking
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0012743
Initial registration date
December 20, 2023

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 21, 2023, 8:06 AM EST

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

Locations

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

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Name
Anna-Corinna Kulle
Affiliation
University of Bern
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Stefanie Schumacher
PI Affiliation
University of Bern
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2023-01-10
End date
2025-03-30
Keywords
Behavior, Gender
Additional Keywords
Gender differences, challenge seeking, challenge persistence, gender wage gap, gender promotion gap, laboratory experiment
JEL code(s)
J16, J78, C91
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
While many companies have achieved a close to 50:50 gender split in recruiting intake, the progression along the career path for women and men is different. Multiple studies show that both women’s promotion and retention rates are lower than men’s, resulting in a widening gender gap at higher career levels. Possible explanations may be related to discriminatory issues, differences in lifestyle choices, or differences in preferences. Well-documented preferences that may partially explain observed differences in economic outcomes include gender differences in competitiveness and challenge seeking. The aim of this study is to understand if women and men who self-select into working on a challenging task differ with respect to their challenge persistence. Do women who seek a challenge in the first place behave similarly to men if the difficulty level further increases that is, a second challenge is proposed? To answer this question, we conduct an online experiment on Prolific. The focus of this study is to observe the behavior of initial challenge seekers if they are confronted with a second subsequent challenge. In line with previous research, we also assess if gender differences exist at the initial challenge seeking decision point. We extend this field of research by analyzing if gender differences continue to persist among the original challenge seekers when they are confronted with a subsequent challenge. We also analyze if challenge seeking increases for participants who did not choose the challenge in stage 2, when they are given a second opportunity to enter the same challenge in stage 3.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Kulle, Anna-Corinna and Stefanie Schumacher. 2023. "Climbing up the career ladder: An examination of gender differences in successive challenge seeking." AEA RCT Registry. December 21. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.12743-1.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
no interventions, see experimental design section
Intervention Start Date
2023-12-28
Intervention End Date
2024-01-11

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
a. Decision Stage 1 (Yes/No) to opt-into the “hard” task
b. Decision Stage 2 (Yes/No) to opt-into the “very hard” task.
The focus of the analysis is on the second decision the “challenge seekers” take (challenge seekers = those who select “yes” to a challenge in Stage 1).
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
a. (Hypothetical) earnings per round (continuous, GBP) (note that only one randomly selected round is paid out at the end of the experiment)
b. Performance (continuous, number of correctly solved tasks per level)
c. Output (continuous, number of tasks worked on per level (correct & incorrect))
d. Ratio performance/output
e. Decision Stage 2 to opt-into the “hard” task (Yes/No) (only participants who answered “no” in “opt-into “hard” task at decision stage 1)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The experiment has three stages in which participants work on a real-effort task. They receive a base rate payment as well as a bonus payment for one of the three experimental stages. The stage for the bonus payment is randomly selected at the end of the experiment. The potentially paid-out bonus piece-rate remuneration at each stage is linked to each selected level of task difficulty and increases with increasing levels of difficulty.

In the first stage of the experiment, all participants work on easy tasks (difficulty level 1). After an initial working period (stage 1), they are offered to take a challenge and can decide whether they want to keep working on easy tasks or instead want to work on harder tasks (difficulty level 1 vs. 2) in the second stage 2. After stage 2, participants who chose to work on the hard task will be presented with the opportunity of a second challenge: For stage 3, they can select if they want to keep working on hard tasks or instead want to work on very hard tasks (difficulty level 2 vs. 3). Participants who decided against a challenge in the first choice (stage 2) will in stage 3 again be presented with the same challenge for a second time (difficulty level 1 vs 2). This design allows us to analyze continuous challenge seeking behavior for participants who chose a challenge for stage 2. It also allows us to analyze if challenge seeking increases for participants who chose no challenge in stage 2, when they are given a second opportunity to enter the challenge.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
In this initial experiment to assess if gender differences in continuous challenge seeking are present, there are no treatments. All participants work under the same base conditions. The primary focus is to analyze differences based on gender (male/female) instead of differences by treatment. Hence, no randomization is required. Participants can self-select into the task on Prolific's platform while the experiment is live.
Randomization Unit
Not applicable
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
Not applicable
Sample size: planned number of observations
Based on previous studies, we conservatively predict to find a gender difference of at least 15 percentage points at the first challenge seeking decision point. Within the group of participants that choose the first challenge, we predict to still find a gender difference of at least 15 percentage points for opting into the second challenge. To be able to find this minimum effect size at both stages, with an average opt-in rate of 85% among men at stage 1, for α = 0.05 and power (1 – β) = 0.80, the required sample size using G*Power 3.1 is 141 men and 173 women. To account for potential data cleaning curb, we add 10% to these numbers. Therewith, we will recruit 155 men and 190 women for this study (in total 345 people). The average 85% opt-in rate of men is based on a pre-test on prolific that was conducted to a) get an indication what the base level in challenge seeking at stage 1 for this task is and to subsequently be able to estimate how many participants are needed, and b) to test & optimize the task for implementation on Prolific (to the best of our knowledge, this is the first time this task is being used in an online experiment outside a controlled laboratory environment).
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
As mentioned above, there are no treatments in this first study, as it is aimed at first detecting if gender differences in continuous challenge seeking are present.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
The minimum detectable effect size at decision stages 1 and 2 is 15 percentage points respectively. (see more details above in the field "planned number of observations")
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Ethics Committee University of Bern, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences
IRB Approval Date
2023-01-23
IRB Approval Number
032023
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information