Back to History Current Version

Miss-Allocation: Occupational Gender Segregation and Gender Composition Preferences

Last registered on October 22, 2021


Trial Information

General Information

Miss-Allocation: Occupational Gender Segregation and Gender Composition Preferences
Initial registration date
October 21, 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
October 22, 2021, 10:02 AM EDT

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



Primary Investigator

Stanford University

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

In development
Start date
End date
Secondary IDs
J16 Economics of Gender
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Despite gender convergence in many areas of the labor market, men and women still work in markedly different occupations. In this paper, I aim to understand whether preferences over the gender composition of one’s occupation can explain continuing occupational gender segregation. To assess the willingness to pay for gender composition of a job, I run a survey in which respondents choose between multiple hypothetical jobs characterized by pay, tasks, and demographics. I then pair the survey results with a structural model to assess the welfare effects of policies that could re-allocate workers across occupations by gender.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Schuh, Rachel. 2021. "Miss-Allocation: Occupational Gender Segregation and Gender Composition Preferences." AEA RCT Registry. October 22.
Sponsors & Partners

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

Request Information
Experimental Details


The main “intervention” is a survey-based conjoint experiment, where respondents choose between multiple pairs of job offers, with the wages and demographic characteristics randomized. Thus the random intervention is in a sense the wage and demographics that a respondent sees for each job pair.
Intervention Start Date
Intervention End Date

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
The primary outcome of interest is the profile of average willingness to pay for different gender compositions, estimated separately for men and women.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
I will consider several secondary outcomes of interest, listed below:
• willingness to pay for age and education composition
• heterogeneous preferences within gender, estimated using a latent-class logit model
• heterogeneity in gender willingness to pay by individual covariates, including correlating these
with latent classes as well as estimating single-type logit separately by group, with covariates
– true female share of occupation, including both reported female share of firm and cowork-
ers with same job at firm, and female share of reported occupation calculated using CPS
and Census/ACS data
– expectations of jobs with different female shares, including satisfaction with coworker
interactions, task content, schedule, work environment, earnings, promotion, and family
– reported gender attitudes from questions on whether women should stay at home and
men work, whether men or women have it easier in the US these days, and stance on
affirmative action for women in the workplace
– demographics including age, education, income, number of children, race, marital status,
employment status, and industry
• occupation choice given choice between two real occupations with and without gender share
shown (secondary experiment, used here only for robustness)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The main trial is a conjoint experiment varying wages and gender compositions of job offers.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Randomization will be done by computer through Qualtrics.
Randomization Unit
Randomization is done at the individual respondent level.
Was the treatment clustered?

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
2000 individuals
Sample size: planned number of observations
2000 individuals
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
no treatment arms per se
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
the minimum detectable effect is a 1% willingness to pay, based on simulations
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
Stanford Human Subjects Research and IRB
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information


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?
Intervention Completion Date
October 01, 2022, 12:00 +00:00
Data Collection Complete
Data Collection Completion Date
October 01, 2022, 12:00 +00:00
Final Sample Size: Number of Clusters (Unit of Randomization)
Was attrition correlated with treatment status?
Final Sample Size: Total Number of Observations
Final Sample Size (or Number of Clusters) by Treatment Arms
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

This study analyzes whether and how much workers value the gender composition of their workplace and the aggregate consequences of these valuations for occupational segregation, tipping, and welfare. To measure these valuations, I conduct a survey with an embedded hypothetical job choice experiment. From my survey, I estimate that women's valuations for gender composition are homophilic but concave and men value gender diversity. There is significant individual heterogeneity in these valuations: older workers are more likely to value gender homophily, suggesting that as men and women's labor market outcomes have converged over time the value of gender homophily has declined. I then use the survey estimates of gender composition valuations in a structural model of occupation choice to assess their consequences for gender sorting and welfare. I find that if workers did not value gender composition, women's employment in male-dominated jobs would increase substantially, but the estimated gender composition valuations are not large enough to create tipping points in segregation. Gender composition valuations also create a sorting externality: a welfare-maximizing social planner would reallocate workers across occupations to substantially decrease gender segregation.
Schuh, Rachel. "Miss-Allocation: The Value of Workplace Gender Composition and Occupational Segregation." Mimeo. (2022).

Reports & Other Materials