Gender Differences in Communication about Tasks with Low Promotability

Last registered on September 19, 2025
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Gender Differences in Communication about Tasks with Low Promotability
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0016785
Initial registration date
September 16, 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
September 19, 2025, 10:27 AM 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

Name
Yijie Wang
Affiliation
Shenzhen University
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Xianghong Wang
PI Affiliation
Renmin University of China
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Yue Zhang
PI Affiliation
Renmin University of China

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2025-09-13
End date
2027-01-01
Keywords
Gender, Lab, Labor
Additional Keywords
JEL code(s)
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial is based on or builds upon one or more prior RCTs.
Abstract
In real workplaces, before non-promotable tasks are assigned, there is usually some form of communication, either in formal meetings or informal conversations. Previous research (Babcock et al., 2017) has shown that gender differences exist in the allocation of such tasks when no communication is allowed. Our study asks: what happens when communication is part of the process?

When people express willingness (or unwillingness) to take on a non-promotable task, they may differ in how they communicate—for example, in the tone of their wording or the strength of their refusal. These communication styles can affect whether their input is taken seriously and whether they end up being assigned the task.

We focus on two aspects: (1) Supply side: Do men and women differ in how they express willingness? Who tends to be more proactive, and who communicates more indirectly? (2) Demand side: Do others respond differently to men’s and women’s communication? Whose voice is more likely to be heard or acted upon?

To answer these questions, we will conduct an experiment designed to capture both sides of this process.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Wang, Xianghong , Yijie Wang and Yue Zhang. 2025. "Gender Differences in Communication about Tasks with Low Promotability." AEA RCT Registry. September 19. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.16785-1.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Participants are randomly assigned into mixed-gender groups of four. In each round, they are asked to request another group member to perform a non-promotable “investment” task. Before the second round of requests, all participants write a short message as if they had been chosen to perform the task. These messages are then shown to all group members, who may adjust their second-round requests accordingly.
Intervention Start Date
2025-09-13
Intervention End Date
2025-10-15

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
1、Expression behavior:
Whether the message expresses refusal.
Length of the message (word count).
Tone of the expression (assertiveness, credibility, sentiment).

Timing of submission.
2、Request behavior:
Whether a participant changes their request from round 1 to round 2
Whose messages influence requests, and whether influence differs by gender
Which types of expression (e.g., assertive refusal) lead to changes in requests.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Refusal indicator: Binary variable coded 1 if the message contains an explicit refusal, 0 otherwise.
Message length: Word count of the written message.
Tone of expression: To be coded using a pre-specified text analysis dictionary and independent coders'ratings.
Timing of submission: Number of seconds from the start of the writing period to submission.
Request change indicator: Binary variable coded 1 if the participant switches their chosen requestee between rounds, 0 otherwise.
Influence measure: Whether the participant's message corresponds with receiving fewer or more requests in round 2.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Gender differences in likelihood of being assigned the task across rounds.
Correlation between group gender composition and patterns of requests.
Differences in whether participants actually choose to perform the task once selected.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Assignment likelihood: Probability of being selected, compared across genders.
Group composition effect: Logistic regression of assignment probability on group gender mix.
Task performance: Binary outcome of whether the selected participant performs the investment task.

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We conduct a lab experiment where participants are randomly grouped into mixed-gender groups of four. Each participant nominates another group member to perform a non-promotable task. Before the second nomination, all writes a short message as if chosen, and these messages are shown to the group. Participants then nominate again. This design allows us to test gender differences in expression (supply side) and in responsiveness to others’ communication (demand side).
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Computer-based randomization implemented through the experiment software
Randomization Unit
Individual participants are randomly assigned to groups of four each round. Within groups, each individual makes independent decisions (requests and messages).
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
Not clustered. Groups of 4 are formed randomly each round.
Sample size: planned number of observations
N = 60–120 participants; each completes 5 rounds → 300–600 participant-round observations.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Not applicable; there is no treatment-control split. All participants experience the same procedure, with variation arising from gender composition and communication behavior.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
This study does not have treatment and control arms. Instead, the main contrasts of interest are gender-based differences (men vs. women) in expression outcomes and in influence on requests. Therefore, we report the Minimum Detectable Effect Sizes (MDEs) for two-sample comparisons (men vs. women) under standard power assumptions (α = 0.05, power = 0.80). With N = 60–120 participants (balanced by gender), the MDE is approximately 0.5–0.7 SD for standardized continuous outcomes (e.g., tone score), and 23–36 percentage points for binary outcomes (e.g., refusal indicator). With repeated measures (5 rounds/participant) and assuming an intra-class correlation of 0.2, the effective sample size is reduced, leading to MDEs of 0.7–1.0 SD and 30–45 percentage points, respectively.
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Analysis Plan