Role Models, Confidence and Gender

Last registered on February 08, 2021


Trial Information

General Information

Role Models, Confidence and Gender
Initial registration date
February 06, 2021

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
February 08, 2021, 11:57 AM EST

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



Primary Investigator

Monash University

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

In development
Start date
End date
Secondary IDs
We combine the literature on role models and the gender gap in beliefs about performance to investigate whether, for a role model to affect women's confidence in their performance, it needs to be salient. In order to test our hypothesis, we will recruit participants who will solve a cognitive ability test and answer questions about their performance on the test. Participants are randomly allocated into two conditions. The treatment group will be primed with a role model before the test and the performance-related questions. The control group will first solve the test and answer performance-related questions and be exposed to a role model after.

We investigate the relationship between role models, gender, and confidence by testing the following hypothesis:

(i) Men will be overconfident regarding their test performance
(ii) Women will be underconfident regarding their test performance
(iii) Making a role model salient will lead women to increase their level of confidence about their test performance
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Gertsberg, Marina. 2021. "Role Models, Confidence and Gender." AEA RCT Registry. February 08.
Experimental Details


Intervention Start Date
Intervention End Date

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
1) Test score
2) Estimated test score by the subject (after completing the test)
3) Self-evaluation of test performance
3) Whether the subject has a role model (yes/no)
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Our measure of confidence is the difference between the subject's estimated test score and the actual test score ((2)-(1) in the above)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Additional exploratory analysis may be conducted on the basis of the following measures:
1) Self-evaluation
2) Education
3) Age
4) Occupation
5) Nature of role model
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Participants recruited via MTurk are randomly assigned to the following two conditions (control and treatment group). 1) Subjects in the control group will complete a cognitive ability test followed by questions about their performance on the test. Following this, subjects will be exposed to a role model. 2) Subjects in the treatment group will be exposed to a role model first. Following the treatment, the subjects will complete a cognitive ability test and be asked questions about their performance on the test.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Participants will be randomly selected (through Qualtrics software) into the conditions at the very beginning of the experiment. They will have an equal probability of being randomised into each of the different treatments.
Randomization Unit
Was the treatment clustered?

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
no clusters
Sample size: planned number of observations
2000 individuals
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
1000 subjects in control group (no priming with role mode before completion of the test); 1000 subjects in treatment group (priming with role model before completion of the test)
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
We are interested in the effect of role model saliency on underconfident women. Based on an exploratory pilot study that we conducted, underconfidence regarding test performance is more likely to occur with higher test performance. Therefore, we need to make sure to have a sufficient amount of observations for subjects with a high test performance (e.g. top 25%). Based on a power analysis our goal is to obtain .80 power to detect an effect of 1 at a standard .05 alpha error probability. This necessitates 120 top-performer participants in each group for a two-sided t-test. As a result, we collect 4x120x2(treatment/control)x2(male/female)=1920. We will collect 2000 to account for eliminated participants (via attention checks, etc).
Supporting Documents and Materials

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

Request Information

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Analysis Plan

Analysis Plan Documents

Analysis Plan

MD5: b83d3739be39b1d50834858f7d2debb2

SHA1: 3b48a4c6236684377e43f154e7d4163f86fa2874

Uploaded At: February 06, 2021


Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

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

Request Information


Is the intervention completed?
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials