Gender Gap in Negotiation

Last registered on February 08, 2022

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Gender Gap in Negotiation
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0008932
Initial registration date
February 07, 2022

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, 2022, 9:40 AM EST

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

Affiliation
Erasmus University Rotterdam

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2022-02-15
End date
2022-12-31
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
I implement an incentivized online experiment with a sample of women from the general population from the US. The sample consists of 2,000 women of US nationality recruited on the online platform Prolific. The participants report to be either employed (either full-time or part-time) or unemployed seeking for a job. The aim of the experiment is to understand whether the beliefs about the gender gap in salary negotiation affects women’s incentivized choices in a labor market context. By providing truthful information that women are way less prone to negotiate their salary compared to men (based on Babcock and Laschever (2003)), I exogenously manipulate the beliefs of the participants on the gender gap in salary negotiation and how the beliefs impact of the participants’ information demand for either an AAUW pamphlet on how to negotiate or the average monthly salary for the workers in the participants’ sector. Finally, I collect the respondents’ behavior in a bargaining situation where they have to bid their reservation wage to join a extra-task to gain a bonus payment. The respondents know that they are matched with participants from another platform (who act as an "employer").
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Capozza, Francesco. 2022. "Gender Gap in Negotiation." AEA RCT Registry. February 08. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.8932
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2022-02-20
Intervention End Date
2022-02-28

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Posterior beliefs
Demand for information
Salary negotiation

See PAP
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Mechanisms

See PAP
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
I implement an incentivized online experiment with a sample of women from the general population from the US. The sample consists of 2,000 women of US nationality recruited on the online platform Prolific. By providing truthful information that women are way less prone to negotiate their salary compared to men (based on Babcock and Laschever (2003)), I exogenously manipulate the beliefs of the participants on the gender gap in salary negotiation and how the beliefs impact of the participants’ information demand for either an AAUW pamphlet on how to negotiate or the average monthly salary for the workers in the participants’ sector. We explore the mechanisms behind the demand for information (backlash, interested for other dimensions when negotiating etc).

In the follow up, I elicit the respondents’ beliefs about the importance of three societal issues: unemployment, gender gap in salary negotiation, and inflation. I use the questions on unemployment and inflation to obfuscate the purpose to check whether the information treatment has persistently altered the respondents’ beliefs.
Finally, I collect the respondents’ behavior in a bargaining situation where they have to bid their reservation wage to join a extra-task to gain a bonus payment. The respondents know that they are matched with participants from another platform (who act as an "employer").
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomisation done by the computer
Randomization Unit
Individual level
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
NA
Sample size: planned number of observations
2000 participants for the main study 1400 participants for the follow up
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
1000 for the Control
1000 for the Treatment
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
0.12 SD with 2.000 participants, alpha = 0.05, 1-beta = 0.80
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Erasmus School of Economics IRB
IRB Approval Date
2021-05-31
IRB Approval Number
2021-08
Analysis Plan

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

Request Information