AEA RCT Registry

Gender differences in the choice of major: The importance of female role models

Last registered on April 10, 2018

View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title

Gender differences in the choice of major: The importance of female role models

RCT ID

AEARCTR-0002879

Initial registration date

April 09, 2018

Last updated

April 10, 2018 3:12 PM EDT

Location(s)

Country

United States of America

Region

Texas

Primary Investigator

Name

Danila Serra

Affiliation

Southern Methodist University

Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status

Completed

Start date

2015-03-15

End date

2017-05-19

Keywords

Education

Additional Keywords

Education gender gap, role models, economics field

JEL code(s)

A22, C93, I23, I24

Secondary IDs

Abstract

We report results from a novel field experiment aimed at increasing the percentage of women majoring in economics by exposing students enrolled in principles of economics classes to charismatic career women who majored in economics at the same university. We find that the role model intervention significantly increased female students' likelihood of planning to major in economics (self-reported) and enrolling in further economics classes (administrative data). The women that were impacted by the intervention were previously planning to major in lower-earning fields, suggesting that our low-cost intervention could have a significant impact on the treated women’s future income streams.

External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation

Serra, Danila. 2018. "Gender differences in the choice of major: The importance of female role models." AEA RCT Registry. April 10. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.2879-1.0.

Former Citation

Serra, Danila. 2018. "Gender differences in the choice of major: The importance of female role models." AEA RCT Registry. April 10. http://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/2879/history/27929.

Sponsors & Partners

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

Request Information

Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)

Students in "treated" principles of economics classes received visits by two charismatic career women that majored in economics at SMU. The role models were chosen from the roaster of economics alumni with the assistance of two female students who were majoring in economics at the time. The students shortlisted alumni and conducted scripted interviews with them. They chose the role models based on their interest in their field of work, as well as their communication skills and overall charisma. The two role models visited the treated classes separately, on different days.

Intervention Start Date

2016-03-15

Intervention End Date

2016-04-15

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)

The outcome variables are male and female students' self-reported desire to major in economics (as registered in a survey that we conducted at the end of the semester) and actual enrollment in intermediate microeconomics the academic year following the intervention.

Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)

Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

We randomly chose 4 of 10 principles of economics classes that were offered in Spring 2016. The treated classes received visits by two charismatic career women that majored in economics at SMU. The role models were chosen from the roaster of economics alumni with the assistance of two female students who were majoring in economics at the time. Since the treatment classes were offered and taught by the same instructors the previous year, we are able to employ a difference-in-differences estimation strategy. The outcome variables are self-reported desire to major in economics (as registered in a survey that we conducted at the end of the semester) and actual enrollment in intermediate microeconomics the academic year following the intervention.

Experimental Design Details

Randomization Method

Randomization done in office by a computer.

Randomization Unit

We randomized at the class level. We stratified by class size, as there were 4 small classes (capped at 40 students) and 6 large classes (with over 100 students). Class sizes are determined by the department of economics and not by student demand. We stratified by class size in order to have comparable numbers of students in the treatment and control groups.

Was the treatment clustered?

Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters

10 clusters (classes) in Spring 2016. The number of clusters becomes 12 when considering the Spring 2015 and the Spring 2016 student cohorts and using a diff-in-diff estimation strategy. Nine classes remained unchanged between the two years, while 3 were different.

Sample size: planned number of observations

1310 students for the two study years.

Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms

4 treatment classes (305 students) and 6 control classes (331 students) in the treatment (post) year. 4 treatment classes (341 students) and 7 control classes (336 students) in the control (pre) year.

Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)

Supporting Documents and Materials

IRB

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)

IRB Name

SMU IRB

IRB Approval Date

2015-04-23

IRB Approval Number

2015-047-SERD

Analysis Plan