NEW UPDATE: Completed trials may now upload and register supplementary documents (e.g. null results reports, populated pre-analysis plans, or post-trial results reports) in the Post Trial section under Reports, Papers, & Other Materials.
Closing the Gender Gap in Volunteering for Low Promotability Tasks: The Role of Nudge and Social Recognition
Last registered on November 04, 2019


Trial Information
General Information
Closing the Gender Gap in Volunteering for Low Promotability Tasks: The Role of Nudge and Social Recognition
Initial registration date
November 02, 2019
Last updated
November 04, 2019 10:17 AM EST

This section is unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access to this information.

Request Information
Primary Investigator
Indian Institute of Management Bangalore
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
Indian Institute of Management Bangalore
Additional Trial Information
In development
Start date
End date
Secondary IDs
Volunteering decisions in group settings often involve sacrifice one one's part or some personal disadvantage for the benefit of the group. Babcock et al. (2017) show that compared to males, females volunteer more for low-promotability task. We extend their design to a laboratory based two-stage volunteering game and study gender difference in volunteering. The aim of this paper is to examine a) whether there is a systematic difference in volunteering across gender, and b) whether the gender difference in volunteering is mitigated by i) nudge, ii) positive social recognition and iii) negative social recognition. Our premise rests on the prior that males and females respond differently to positive and negative social recognition for low stake volunteering tasks.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Banerjee, Ritwik and Priyoma Mustafi. 2019. "Closing the Gender Gap in Volunteering for Low Promotability Tasks: The Role of Nudge and Social Recognition." AEA RCT Registry. November 04. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.4176-1.0.
Experimental Details
Intervention Start Date
Intervention End Date
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
Probability of investing
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Time taken to volunteer
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
The game is played for ten rounds each, in which the participants are randomly and anonymously assigned to groups of three. Each round consists of two stages. In Stage 1, the participants are given anywhere between 45 to 90 seconds to decide whether they individually wish to volunteer or invest in a group account, on behalf of the group. They do not exactly know how much time has been allotted to their group. Incentive structure of the game is such that a group member is better off waiting for someone in his/her group to invest. At the end of Stage 1, the participants receive information about which group member was the 'investor', if any. In Stage 2, with the group composition remaining the same, the participants again have to individually take this investment decision within the unknown stipulated time.
Our treatments differ in terms of the information given at the end of Stage 1. In our baseline treatment, we give the participants no information about the investor. In the nudge treatment, we just display the player's neutral identity in the group to investigate the effect of a 'nudge'. In the next treatment, fictitious names of the investors are displayed on the participants screens.
Three additional treatments are designed to investigate how social recognition induce investing. Subjects are told that each group will be displayed the names of the investor and publicly congratulated in the positive social recognition treatment. In the negative social recognition treatment, they are told that the names of the two non-investors will be displayed. Finally, in the positive and negative social recognition treatment, both the names of the investor and non-investors are displayed. Likelihood of investing is compared across treatments.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomization done by software ztree (used for laboratory experiments)
Randomization Unit
Was the treatment clustered?
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
Sample size: planned number of observations
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
80 by each treatment arms
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number