Agentic Women and Workplace Bias

Last registered on April 30, 2025
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Agentic Women and Workplace Bias
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0015847
Initial registration date
April 24, 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 30, 2025, 9:22 AM EDT

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

Locations

Country
United States of America
Region

Primary Investigator

Name
Prerana Maheshwari
Affiliation
Purdue University
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2025-04-29
End date
2025-08-31
Keywords
Behavior, Gender, Lab
Additional Keywords
JEL code(s)
J24, J71
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Despite advances, women remain underrepresented in masculine fields and higher-level positions. Agentic qualities (e.g., confidence, assertiveness, dominance) are often crucial for workplace success, yet women face a double bind: they may be stereotypically perceived as lacking these traits, but penalized for displaying them (backlash). This study experimentally investigates whether providing explicit information about women's agentic qualities mitigates stereotype-based hiring discrimination in masculine-typed roles or triggers norm-based backlash. We examine how effects vary by job level (entry vs. higher-level/influential) and the specific agentic trait, isolating the impact of dominance (a proscriptive trait) versus other prescriptive agentic qualities (confidence, assertiveness, diligence, independence). Using a two-part experiment, we first generate candidate profiles based on worker performance in tasks measuring competence (Target Guessing Game) and these agentic traits. Second, online evaluators review and rank sets of CVs—systematically varied by candidate gender, competence signal (noise level), and the presence/type of agentic information—for both entry-level and higher-level positions. We test whether agentic information reduces discrimination or increases it via backlash, whether dominance information triggers greater backlash compared to other agentic traits (especially for women and in higher-level roles), and whether agentic qualities are perceived as signals of competence. The findings aim to elucidate the complex interplay between statistical discrimination and taste-based backlash in driving workplace gender bias against agentic women.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Maheshwari, Prerana. 2025. "Agentic Women and Workplace Bias." AEA RCT Registry. April 30. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.15847-1.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention (Hidden)
Intervention Start Date
2025-04-29
Intervention End Date
2025-08-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
The central outcome variable in this study is the rank assigned by evaluators to each candidate's CV. We are primarily interested in examining the differences in these ranks when comparing candidates who are presented with systematically varied information regarding their gender, their competence signal, and their agentic qualities (including variations in the presence, level, and specific type of agentic information, such as the inclusion or exclusion of dominance). By analyzing how these ranks differ across CVs presenting distinct combinations of characteristics, we aim to measure the extent of baseline gender discrimination and determine whether providing specific informational signals about competence or agency mitigates this discrimination or potentially triggers backlash, leading to changes in hiring preference. Furthermore, we will investigate whether these observed differences in ranking patterns vary significantly depending on the job level context for which the evaluator is considering the candidate (entry-level versus higher-level). Supporting ratings of hireability, competence, and likability will also be collected to provide deeper insight into the evaluators' decision-making processes reflected in the rankings.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Using the ranks assigned in a particular set of CVs, we will be able to determine if agentic qualities are perceived as signals of competence.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
This study employs a two-part experimental design. In the first part, participants (workers) complete a series of tasks designed to generate measures related to competence (via a dynamic number-guessing game) and several agentic qualities (including assertiveness, confidence, diligence, self-reliance, and dominance). Data from this part are used to construct candidate CV profiles for the second part.
In the second part, a separate group of participants (evaluators) engage in a hiring/selection process. Evaluators are presented with sets of four candidate CVs at a time. These CVs contain varying information about the candidates, including gender, a signal related to their competence derived from the first part, and information regarding their agentic qualities. Evaluators are asked to rank these four candidates from 1 (most preferred) to 4 (least preferred) for a hypothetical position requiring skills relevant to the competence task.
The design includes two key structural components for comparison. First, each evaluator will make ranking decisions for two distinct job contexts presented in random order: an entry-level position and a higher-level position. Second, evaluators will be assigned to different conditions regarding the specific agentic information displayed on the CVs; notably, some evaluators will see profiles including information on dominance, while others will see profiles where this specific trait information is omitted, focusing instead on other agentic qualities. The primary outcome variable is the rank assigned to each CV under these different informational and job-level contexts.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
All randomizations will be done by computer softwares.
Randomization Unit
Randomization will happen at individual level, as different individuals will be assigned to different treatments and order of decisions within a treatment.
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
400 individuals
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Purdue University
IRB Approval Date
2025-04-23
IRB Approval Number
IRB-2025-602
Analysis Plan

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