Gender Quotas, Competitions, and Peer Review: Experimental Evidence on the Backlash Against Women

References

• Adams RB, Ferreira D (2009) Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. J. Financial Econom. 94(2):291–309.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ahern KR, Dittmar A (2012) The changing of the boards: The impact on firm valuation of mandated female board representation. Quart. J. Econom. 127(1):137–197.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ambrose ML, Seabright MA, Schminke M (2002) Sabotage in the workplace: The role of organizational injustice. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 89(1):947–965.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J, Miller J (2002) Giving according to GARP: An experimental test of the consistency of preferences for altruism. Econometrica 70(2):737–753.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Babcock L, Laschever S (2003) Women Don’t Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Balafoutas L, Sutter M (2012) Affirmative action policies promote women and do not harm efficiency in the laboratory. Science 335(3):579–582.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Balafoutas L, Lindner F, Sutter M (2012) Sabotage in tournaments: Evidence from a natural experiment. Kyklos 65(4):425–441.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Beaman L, Chattopadhyay R, Duflo E, Pande R, Topalova P (2009) Powerful women: Does exposure reduce bias? Quart. J. Econom. 124(4):1497–1540.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bertrand M (2010) New perspectives on gender. Ashenfelter O, Card D, eds. Handbook of Labor Economics, Vol. 4B (Elsevier Science, Amsterdam), 1543–1590.Google Scholar
• BI Norwegian Business School (2014) Gender-quota boardrooms come at high price. ScienceDaily (February 24), https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140224081115.htm.Google Scholar
• Blau F, Feber M, Winkler A (2010) The Economics of Women, Men and Work (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).Google Scholar
• Bohnet I, Van Geen A, Bazerman M (2016) When performance trumps gender bias: Joint vs. separate evaluation. Management Sci. 62(5):1225–1234.Link, Google Scholar
• Booth A, Nolen P (2012) Choosing to compete: How different are girls and boys? J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 81(2):542–555.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bowles HR, Babcock L, McGinn KL (2005) Constraints and triggers: Situational mechanics of gender in negotiations. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 89(6):951–965.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brandts J, Groenert V, Rott C (2015) The impact of advice on women’s and men’s selection into competition. Management Sci. 61(5):1018–1035.Link, Google Scholar
• Buser T, Dreber A, Mollerstrom J (2015) Stress reactions cannot explain the gender gap in willingness to compete. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper 15-059/I, Tinbergen Institute, Amsterdam.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cárdenas JC, Dreber A, Von Essen E, Ranehill E (2012) Gender differences in competitiveness and risk taking: Comparing children in Colombia and Sweden. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 83(1):11–23.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carpenter J, Matthews PH, Schirm J (2010) Tournaments and office politics: Evidence from a real effort experiment. Amer. Econom. Rev. 100(1):504–517.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Catalyst (2012) The bottom line: Connecting corporate performance and gender diversity. Report, Catalyst, New York. http://catalyst.org.Google Scholar
• Charness G, Rabin M (2002) Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quart. J. Econom. 117(3):817–869.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Masclet D, Villeval MC (2013) The dark side of competition for status. Management Sci. 60(1):38–55.Link, Google Scholar
• Chen K (2003) Sabotage in promotion tournaments. J. Law Econom. Organ. 19(1):119–140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Croson R, Gneezy U (2009) Gender differences in preferences. J. Econom. Literature 47(2):448–474.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dargnies M (2011) Men too shy away from competition: The case of team competition. Management Sci. 15(11):1982–2000.Link, Google Scholar
• Dato S, Nieken P (2014) Gender differences in competition and sabotage. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 100(April):64–80.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Duffy MK, Scott KL, Shaw JD, Tepper BJ, Aquino K (2012) A social context model of envy and social undermining. Acad. Management J. 55(3):643–666.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Edwards MR, Ewen AJ (1996) 360° Feedback: The Powerful New Model for Employee Assessment and Performance Improvement (AMACOM American Management Association, New York).Google Scholar
• Engelmann D, Strobel M (2004) Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments. Amer. Econom. Rev. 94(4):857–869.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Falk A, Fehr E (2003) Why labour market experiments? Labour Econom. 10(4):399–406.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Flory JA, Leibbrandt A, List JA (2015) Do competitive workplaces deter female workers? A large-scale natural field experiment on job-entry decisions. Rev. Econom. Stud. 82(1):122–155.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Flory JA, Leibbrandt A, List JA (2016) The effects of wage contracts on workplace misbehaviors: Evidence from a call center natural field experiment. NBER Working Paper 22342, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Rustichini A (2004) Gender and competition at a young age. Amer. Econom. Rev. 94(2):377–381.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Leonard KL, List JA (2009) Gender differences in competition: Evidence from a matrilineal and a patriarchal society. Econometrica 77(5):1637–1664.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Niederle M, Rustichini A (2003) Performance in competitive environments: Gender differences. Quart. J. Econom. 118(3):1049–1074.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gurtler O, Munster J, Nieken P (2013) Information policy in tournaments with sabotage. Scand. J. Econom. 115(3):932–966.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harbring C, Irlenbusch B (2005) Incentives in tournaments with endogenous prize selection. J. Institutional Theoret. Econom. 161(4):636–663.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harbring C, Irlenbusch B (2008) How many winners are good to have? On tournaments with sabotage. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 65(3):682–702.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harbring C, Irlenbusch B, Kräkel M, Selten R (2007) Sabotage in corporate contests—An experimental analysis. Internat. J. Econom. Bus. 14(3):367–392.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ifcher J, Zarghamee H (2016) Do gender-variant preferences for competition persist in the absence of performance? Econom. Inquiry 54(4):1918–1930.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leibbrandt A, List JA (2014) Do women avoid salary negotiations? Evidence from a large-scale natural field experiment. Management Sci. 61(9):2016–2024.Link, Google Scholar
• Matsa D, Miller A (2013) A female style in corporate leadership? Evidence from quotas. Amer. Econom. J.: Appl. Econom. 5(3):136–169.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McKinsey & Company (2010) Women matter—Women at the top of corporations: Making it happen. Report, McKinsey & Company, New York.Google Scholar
• Mollerstrom J (2015) Favoritism Reduces Cooperation (George Mason University, Fairfax, VA).Google Scholar
• Neuman JH, Baron RA (1997) Aggression in the workplace. Giacalone RA, Greenberg J, eds. Antisocial Behavior in Organizations (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), 37–67.Google Scholar
• Niederle M, Vesterlund L (2007) Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much? Quart. J. Econom. 122(3):1067–1101.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Niederle M, Segal C, Vesterlund L (2013) How costly is diversity? Affirmative action in light of gender differences in competition. Management Sci. 59(1):1–16.Link, Google Scholar
• Rasnic CD (1995) Austria’s affirmative action for women workers versus protective legislation for the “weaker sex”: Incongruous concepts? Labour Law J. 46(12):749–762.Google Scholar
• Reuben E, Sapienza P, Zingales L (2014) How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111(12): 4403–4408.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reuben E, Rey-Biel P, Sapienza P, Zingales L (2012) The emergence of male leadership in competitive environments. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 83(1):111–117.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schwieren C, Weichselbaumer D (2010) Does competition enhance performance or cheating? A laboratory experiment. J. Econom. Psych. 31(3):241–253.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sutter M, Glätzle-Rützler D, Balafoutas L, Czermak S (2016) Cancelling out early age gender differences in competition: An analysis of policy interventions. Experiment. Econom. 19(2):412–432.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vandegrift D, Yavas A (2010) An experimental test of sabotage in tournaments. J. Institutional Theoret. Econom. 166(2):259–285.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weber EU, Blais AR, Betz NE (2002) A domain-specific risk attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. J. Behav. Decision Making 15(4):263–290.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weisul K (2015) Globally, women gain corporate board seats—but not in the US. Fortune (January 12), http://fortune.com/2015/01/13/catalyst-women-boards-countries-us/.Google Scholar
• Whelan J, Wood R (2012) Targets and Quotas for Women in Leadership: A Global Review of Policy, Practice and Psychological Research (Centre for Ethical Leadership, Melbourne, VIC, Australia).Google Scholar
• Williams JC (2014) Hacking tech’s diversity problem. Harvard Bus. Rev. 92(10):94–100.Google Scholar
• Zhang YJ (2015) Culture, institutions, and the gender gap in competitive inclination: Evidence from the communist experiment in China. Working paper, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay.Google Scholar