Gender, Confidence, and Leadership: Examining Causal Effects on Willingness to Lead

Last registered on April 15, 2025

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Gender, Confidence, and Leadership: Examining Causal Effects on Willingness to Lead
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0015664
Initial registration date
April 03, 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
April 15, 2025, 1:17 PM EDT

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

Affiliation
Paris School of Economics

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (CES), Paris School of Economics
PI Affiliation
Monash University

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2025-04-14
End date
2025-12-31
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial is based on or builds upon one or more prior RCTs.
Abstract
Gender disparities in leadership roles have long been a focal point of research, particularly due to their implications for the gender wage gap. While existing literature has extensively explored biases and discrimination in leader selection processes, a growing body of research highlights the role of gender differences in willingness to lead (WTL) in perpetuating the leadership gap. Notably, disparities in confidence levels have been proposed as a potential contributor to these differences, with women often exhibiting lower levels of confidence compared to men (Coffman, 2014; Adamecz-Volgyi and Shure, 2022). However, empirical evidence on the role of confidence in explaining gender disparities in leadership aspirations remains limited. To address this gap, the present study seeks to identify the causal relationship between gender differences in confidence and the gender gap in willingness to lead (WTL) by experimentally manipulating confidence levels within a controlled laboratory environment.

Registration Citation

Citation
Bouleau, Clémentine, Lata Gangadharan and Nina Rapoport. 2025. "Gender, Confidence, and Leadership: Examining Causal Effects on Willingness to Lead." AEA RCT Registry. April 15. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.15664-1.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2025-04-14
Intervention End Date
2025-12-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Willingness to lead
Individual performance
Relative confidence: Prior and posterior (post-signal) beliefs about belonging to top 50% performers
Global confidence
Local confidence
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Willingness to lead - Participants indicate how much they want to become the leader of their group, on a scale between 1 and 10
Global confidence: Incentivized guess of absolute performance in the 1st task
Relative confidence: Incentivized guesses of the chances of belonging to the top 50% of a reference group in the experiment, both before and after receiving a noisy signal about performance
Local confidence: Average confidence reported by participant for each item in Task 1

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Explicit and implicit gender attitudes
Risk attitudes
Social preferences
Personality traits
Leaders’ evaluation
Text of leader's messages
Gender identity questions
Alternative (hypothetical) leadership scenario questions
Demographic information - age, gender, occupation, field of study for students
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Part I

a. Individual work - participants work individually on a task outlining a survival situation. They answer a series of questions consisting of selecting which items they find most important for survival. We use an expert solution to evaluate these answers and determine payoffs in the different parts of the experiment.

b. Confidence elicitation - we measure participants' confidence in their answers on several confidence dimensions (local, global, relative).

c. Confidence manipulation - [Treatment assignment] - Participants receive a noisy feedback signal about their relative performance in Part 1.a. Those whose performance was in the top 50% are assigned to an urn with a higher probability of drawing a black ball (indicating good news), while those whose performance was in the bottom 50% are assigned to an urn with a higher probability of drawing a red ball (indicating bad news). Then, a ball is randomly drawn from the assigned urn, and the color of the ball determines whether they are assigned to the "good news" or "bad news" treatment.

d. Post-signal confidence elicitation: participants are given the chance to update their relative confidence, i.e. their belief on being in the top 50% of a reference group after seeing the signal

Part 2
a. Appointment of a group leader - participants are informed that they will perform a similar task involving a different survival situation. They are also told that they are grouped with 3 other participants in the session, with whom they will work for this task. Before starting Part 2.b, a group leader will be appointed, whose role is to suggest an answer to other group members. Other group members can choose whether or not to follow the leader’s suggestion, but eventually everyone gets the same payoff which is based on the average score of the group. Once participants are informed of these procedures, they indicate how much they want to become the leader, on a scale between 1 and 10 (“Willingness to Lead”). The group members who indicate the highest motivation are selected to become group leaders.

b. Group work - following the procedures described above, participants complete the second task.

c. Confidence elicitation: - We elicit beliefs about (individual) performance in the second part, and a belief on group dynamics.

d. Evaluation of Leader - group members are asked to evaluate the leader's performance on a scale from 1 to 10, and leaders are asked to evaluate their own performance as a leader on the same scale.

Part 3 - IAT Test, Questionnaire, and Payment

a. IAT - participants take an implicit association test (IAT), eliciting the strength of their implicit associations between leadership and being male.

b. Questionnaire - participants answer questions about their gender identity, willingness to take risks, personality traits using a reduced version of the Big Five Inventory (BFI-10), beliefs about gender differences in task performance, attitudes on gender and leadership, previous leadership experience and motivation for their answer to the WTL question. We collect demographic information on age, gender and occupation/field of study.

c. Hypothetical Scenario - We present participants with a hypothetical leadership scenario similar to the responsibility treatment that we had in a previous data collection and ask them questions about what they would do in this scenario.

d. SVO task - We elicit participants’ social preferences using the six primary SVO Slider items (Murphy et. al, 2011).

e. Feedback and Payment - participants receive feedback on their performance in Part 1 and 2. They also have the opportunity to view the experts' solutions to better understand their scores. One the two parts of the experiment is randomly selected to determine payment.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Drawing a ball from an urn.
Randomization Unit
Individual level
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
160 participants
Sample size: planned number of observations
160 participants
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
160 participants
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Based on budget constraints, we first aim for a sample of around 160 participants, with an equal number of men and women (80 men and 80 women). Results from van der Weele and Schwardmann (2019) suggest that this should be enough to create significant variations in confidence, but this might however not be enough to estimate the second stage (effect of the confidence manipulation on willingness to lead). With a total of 160 participants in a between‐subjects design, we can expect to detect a moderate effect of confidence on WTL (Cohen’s d ≈ 0.44) at standard levels of statistical power (80%, α=0.05). If the true effect is smaller, 160 participants may be underpowered. In that case, we will consider increasing the sample size subject to budget availability.
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Institutional Review Board - Paris School of Economics
IRB Approval Date
2024-10-01
IRB Approval Number
2024-047