Gender Differences in Self-Promotion and Career Advice

Last registered on July 16, 2024
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Gender Differences in Self-Promotion and Career Advice
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0013803
Initial registration date
July 09, 2024

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
July 16, 2024, 2:30 PM EDT

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

Locations

Country
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Region

Primary Investigator

Name
Roel van Veldhuizen
Affiliation
Lund University
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Juliana Silva Goncalves
PI Affiliation
University of Sydney
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Rigissa Megalokomonou
PI Affiliation
Monash University
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2024-07-14
End date
2024-07-31
Keywords
Education, Gender, Labor
Additional Keywords
Online Experiment, Advice
JEL code(s)
J16, C91
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
People often rely on advice from e.g., parents, teachers and colleagues to make important career decisions. We use an online experiment to study gender differences in self-promotion and career advice. For this purpose, we ask participants in the role of advisers to give advice to "workers" (other participants in the experiment). We study whether male and female workers receive different advice, and if so, whether these differences are driven by a gender gap in worker self-promotion or by other factors. We also examine whether any gender gap in advice we uncover can be reduced by changing the information available to advisers.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Megalokomonou, Rigissa, Juliana Silva Goncalves and Roel van Veldhuizen. 2024. "Gender Differences in Self-Promotion and Career Advice." AEA RCT Registry. July 16. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.13803-1.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
See the design section below.
Intervention (Hidden)
See the design section below.
Intervention Start Date
2024-07-14
Intervention End Date
2024-07-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
(1) Worker Confidence
(2) Advice
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
See the pre-analysis plan for a detailed explanation.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
See the pre-analysis plan
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
See the pre-analysis plan

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We conduct a three-part experiment. In session 1, participants in the role of workers work on a math and science quiz. Upon completing the quiz, they indicate their confidence in several ways, forming a worker “portfolio”. In session 2, a different set of participants in the role of advisers sees the portfolio of five workers and advises each worker whether they should go for an advanced (A) or a basic (B) version of the task. In session 3, each worker receives the advice from one adviser and decides which of the two versions of the task to pursue.
Experimental Design Details
We conduct a three-part experiment. In session 1, participants in the role of workers work on a math and science quiz. Upon completing the quiz, they indicate their confidence in several ways, forming a worker “portfolio”. In session 2, a different set of participants in the role of advisers sees the portfolio of five workers and advises each worker whether they should go for an advanced (A) or a basic (B) version of the task. In session 3, each worker receives the advice from one adviser and decides which of the two versions of the task to pursue.
Randomization Method
By a computer.
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
1750 advisers and 350 workers.
Sample size: planned number of observations
1750 advisers and 350 workers.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
We will have 700 advisers in baseline, and 550 in the Nudge and Subjective treatment.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
With the intended sample size, we will have a power greater than 0.90 to detect (a) gender differences in worker confidence in line with the pilot and previous literature, (b) a gender gap in advice of half the size of the gap implied by our pilots and (c) treatment effects that eliminate 70% or more of the baseline gender gap in advice. See the pre-analysis plan for further details.
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Ethics Committee of the University of Sydney
IRB Approval Date
2024-04-19
IRB Approval Number
2022/872
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

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

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
No
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials