Gender Representation in the Labor Market and Ambiguity

Last registered on March 19, 2025

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Gender Representation in the Labor Market and Ambiguity
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0015536
Initial registration date
March 11, 2025

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
March 19, 2025, 11:59 AM EDT

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

Locations

Primary Investigator

Affiliation

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2025-03-17
End date
2025-03-31
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
We wish to explore why certain genders tend to be more represented in some fields than another gender, and whether this influences how people view the abilities of men and women in those fields. Traditionally, the economics literature has suggested that people believe men and women are differently capable, which encourages them to go into different professions. For example, certain jobs are often seen as better suited for one gender over the other based on assumed abilities.

However, we propose that differences in gender representation across professions is not just about the perceptions of how well men and women perform in those domains. Instead, it’s about how certain people feel about the abilities of men and women in those professions. When one gender is highly represented in a field, there are more opportunities to observe them, leading people to feel more confident or certain in their abilities within that field. This increased certainty could reinforce the level of gender representation.

We use a survey to investigate whether the higher representation of one gender in certain professions does indeed predict greater certainty about that gender's abilities compared to the less-represented gender.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
McCrea, Ashley. 2025. "Gender Representation in the Labor Market and Ambiguity." AEA RCT Registry. March 19. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.15536-1.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention (Hidden)
Intervention Start Date
2025-03-17
Intervention End Date
2025-03-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Beliefs about how men and women perform in given professions
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Second-order beliefs about how they thought others thought each gender performed in the same professions presented
Beliefs about the representation of each gender in the profession in the UK
Level of personal exposure to that profession
Socio-demographics
Survey measures for time preferences, risk preferences, altruism, fairness preferences, and reciprocity.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We examine the relationship between the level of representation of a gender in a profession and the amount of ambiguity people have about that gender’s ability in that profession.

The experimental design consists of a survey on a representative Prolific sample of the UK population, conducted on oTree. We elicit beliefs about how men and women perform in given professions. Participants are randomly assigned to evaluate professions, which vary by the degree to which each gender is represented within the profession.

In addition to beliefs about performance, we collect:
- Second-order beliefs about how they thought others thought each gender performed in the same professions presented
- Beliefs about the representation of each gender in the profession in the UK
- Level of personal exposure to that profession
- Socio-demographics
- Survey measures for time preferences, risk preferences, altruism, fairness preferences, and reciprocity.
Experimental Design Details
Experimental Design
We examines the relationship between the level of representation of a gender in a profession and the amount of ambiguity people have about that gender’s ability in that profession.
The experimental design consists of a single survey on a representative Prolific sample of the UK population, conducted on oTree. Our participants complete 5 tasks, with our primary dependent variable collected from Task 1.

Random Assignment Procedure
We do not use a traditional control condition. Instead, each participant is randomly assigned to evaluate six occupation-gender pairs. These pairs are systematically varied based on levels of gender representation defined by UK Office of National Statistics (ONS) data:
• One occupation from Very Male-Dominated professions: Plumbers or Electricians
• One occupation from Somewhat Male-Dominated professions: Architects or Police Officers
• Two occupations from Not Gender-Dominated professions: Debt Collectors, Chartered Accountants, Generalist Medical Practitioners, or Bar Staff
• One occupation from Somewhat Female-Dominated professions: Human Resources Officers or Pharmacists
• One occupation from Very Female-Dominated professions: Dental Nurses or Midwifery Nurse
Within these six occupations, three are randomly associated with women and three with men (e.g., Female Plumbers, Male Bar Staff).

Task 1
For several different domains and gender pairings, we ask our participants the following question: “What is your estimate of the percentage of [GENDER] [OCCUPATION] with a high level of skill?
We would like you to make your determination of what that means based on one or more of the following criteria:
• Punctuality: Consistently arrives on time and meets deadlines for tasks and projects.
• Accuracy: Completes tasks with minimal errors or revisions required.
• Efficiency: Completes tasks in a timely manner without compromising quality.
• Reliability: Consistently follows through on commitments and responsibilities.
• Knowledge Proficiency: Thorough understanding of job-specific knowledge and procedures.
• Ethical Behaviour: Adheres to ethical standards and organizational policies.
• Professionalism: Maintains appropriate demeanour, dress, and conduct in the workplace.
• Respectfulness: Demonstrates respect for colleagues and clients.

With this question, we present a series of sliders with different percentage ranges:
- At least 0%, less than 10%
- At least 10%, less than 20%
- ….
- 90% or more

To answer this question, participants must assign 100 tokens across these sliders, where the weights represent how confident participants are that the true percentage lies in that range.
For each gender/occupation pair, we calculate the variance of the midpoint of these point estimates, which is our key dependent variable. We will also have the associated categories each participant used to make their probability assessment for each gender/occupation pair.

We will collect additional variables, which we will use for exploratory analysis.


Task 2
We will show participants the same gender/profession pairs they saw in Task 1. We will state that other participants made the same judgments as them on those professions. We will ask participants to tell us, for each gender/profession pair, what do they estimate was the slider that most people put most tokens on.
At the end of the study, we will randomly select one of the gender/profession pairs. For that gender/profession pair, we will determine the slider that most people put most tokens on. If a participant’s estimate is correct, then they will receive an additional £1.
This task measures descriptive social norms about gender in each profession.

Task 3
We will ask participants to estimate the split of men and women in the UK that work in the professions for which they made estimates in Task 1 and Task 2. At the end of the study, we will randomly select one of the gender/profession pairs. For that gender/profession pair, we will compare their estimate to official ONS data. If the participant’s estimate is within 2% of the official statistic, then they will receive an additional £1.
This task measures beliefs about the representativeness of each gender in the profession.

Task 4
We will ask participants a series of questions about their experience with the professions for which they provided estimates in Tasks 1, 2 and 3.
For each profession, we will ask you about how many people in that profession you have come across, either socially, professionally or in other day-to-day life circumstances in the last 12 months. Then we will ask participants to tell us for the proportion of times these interactions occurred with men compared to women.
This task measures the direct experience each participant has with each gender/profession pair.

Task 5
We will measure socio-demographics, as well as survey measures for time preferences, risk preferences, altruism, fairness preferences, and reciprocity.
Randomization Method
Computer Randomisation
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
800 Individuals
Sample size: planned number of observations
800 Individuals
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
In expectation, each gender/profession pair will be assessed by 200 people (due to random assignment to gender/profession pairs).
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
University of Exeter Business School Ethics
IRB Approval Date
2025-02-12
IRB Approval Number
8561691

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