Gender Differences in Preferences for Leadership Tasks

Last registered on April 15, 2025

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Gender Differences in Preferences for Leadership Tasks
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0015754
Initial registration date
April 07, 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, 2:22 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
Technical University of Munich

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2025-04-09
End date
2025-12-31
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
I conduct a choice experiment among employees in Germany that induces exogenous variation in job attributes. The experimental design closely follows Maestas et al. (2023). The main objective is to estimate workers’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) for two job tasks that are characteristic of leadership roles, as well as for two additional job attributes. The study focuses on gender-based heterogeneity in willingness-to-pay (WTP) for leadership tasks and explores how this variation relates to career aspirations, family preferences, competitiveness, and the proportion of female colleagues.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Brosch, Hanna. 2025. "Gender Differences in Preferences for Leadership Tasks." AEA RCT Registry. April 15. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.15754-1.0
Sponsors & Partners

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

Request Information
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
I run an online discrete choice experiment among employees in Germany to estimate their willingness-to-pay (WTP) for the two leadership tasks: team and project responsibility and two additional job attributes: commuting time and flexibility. The discrete choice experiment is part of a longer questionnaire that focuses on leadership roles.
Intervention Start Date
2025-04-09
Intervention End Date
2025-06-01

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Respondents’ choice between two hypothetical jobs.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
I use respondents’ choice between two hypothetical jobs to estimate the WTP for two leadership related job tasks (team and project responsibility) and two additional job attributes (commuting time and flexibility).

My focus is on the heterogeneity in WTP for the leadership tasks by gender. The inclusion of commuting and flexibility serves as a benchmark, allowing for a comparison of the effect sizes of the leadership tasks with well-established job attributes.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
My primary interest lies in the two leadership tasks. For these tasks, I explore whether common explanations for gender differences found in the literature can account for the patterns observed in the gender-specific WTP estimates.
Specifically, I examine interactions between gender and the following four constructs:
1. Respondents’ career aspirations
2. Respondents’ family preferences
3. Respondents’ competitiveness
4. Respondents’ share of female coworkers

Additionally, I conduct two types of exploratory analyses. First, I examine whether respondents sort into their current jobs based on job attributes, following an approach similar to Maestas et al. (2023). Second, I explore additional sources of heterogeneity in willingness to pay by respondents’ education, age, job type (e.g., sector, career opportunities), and other individual characteristics.
(For details on the constructs and survey questions, see the pre-analysis plan.)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The experimental design aims at identifying the workers’ WTP pay for the two job tasks: team responsibility and decision-making. Additionally, I plan to analyze workers' willingness to pay for other job attributes. The key features of the experimental design follows Maestas et al. (2023).

Each respondent participates in ten stated-preference experiments. In each experiment, survey respondents are asked to select between two jobs (A and B), each defined by a partially varying set of job attributes and wages.

For each respondent, I define a baseline job around which job attributes would vary. The baseline job is the respondent’s current job in order to generate hypothetical jobs that would appear realistic to the respondent. For this purpose, the respondents are asked about their current occupation, job attributes and wage prior to the discrete choice experiment. The five job attributes vary when selected and the wage always varies. In the following, I describe how I create the variation.

Starting from the respondent’s baseline job, I create hypothetical Job A and Job B by randomly selecting two non-wage attributes to vary across the two hypothetical jobs. Within each of the two randomly selected attributes, attribute values are chosen at random sequentially, first for Job A and then for Job B without replacement.

In every job choice, respondents see two jobs next to each other where two randomly selected job attributes and the monthly wage vary. Those three attributes are marked in red and all the other job attributes are the same as in their current job. The respondents were asked to select “Job A” or “Job B.”

(For details on the mapping between survey questions and discrete choice attributes, as well as the random wage generation, see the pre-analysis plan.)

Reference: Maestas, Nicole, Kathleen J. Mullen, David Powell, Till von Wachter, and Jeffrey B. Wenger. 2023. "The Value of Working Conditions in the United States and the Implications for the Structure of Wages." American Economic Review, 113 (7): 2007-47.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
By a computer
Randomization Unit
At the individual level
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
-
Sample size: planned number of observations
3,000 individuals making 10 choices over 2 job profiles resulting in 30,000 choices over 60,000 job profiles
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
There are no treatment arms in my design, but the job attributes vary randomly in each individual choice experiment.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
German Association for Experimental Economic Research e.V.
IRB Approval Date
2025-03-26
IRB Approval Number
in1DcYuT
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information