From Micro to Macro Gender Differences: Evidence from Field Tournaments

References

• Abadie A, Imbens GW (2006) Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects. Econometrica 74:235–267.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abadie A, Imbens GW (2011) Bias-corrected matching estimators for average treatment effects. J. Bus. Econom. Statist. 29:1–11.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alan S, Ertac S (2019) Mitigating the gender gap in the willingness to wompete: Evidence from a randomized field experiment. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 17:1147–1185.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Antonovics K, Arcidiacono P, Walsh R (2009) The effects of gender interactions in the lab and in the field. Rev. Econom. Statist. 91:152–162.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Azmat G, Petrongolo B (2014) Gender and the labor market: What have we learned from field and lab experiments? Labour Econom. 30:32–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Backus P, Cubel M, Guid M, Sanchez-Pages S, Lopez Manas E (2022) Gender, competition and performance: Evidence from Chess Players, Quant. Econom. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
• Bertrand M (2011) New Perspectives on Gender, Handbook of Labor Economics, vol. 4 (Elsevier), 1543–1590.Google Scholar
• Bertrand M (2020) Gender in the twenty-first century. AEA Pap. Proc. 110:1–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Booth AL (2009) Gender and competition. Labour Econom. 16:599–606.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Booth A, Nolen P (2012) Choosing to compete: How different are girls and boys? J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 81:542–555.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Booth A, Yamamura E (2018) Performance in mixed-sex and single-sex competitions: What we can learn from speedboat races in Japan. Rev. Econom. Statist. 100:581–593.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Born A, Ranehill E, Sandberg A (2022) Gender and willingness to lead: Does the gender composition of teams matter? Rev. Econom. Statist. 104:259–275.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Buckles K (2019) Fixing the leaky pipeline: Strategies for making economics work for women at every stage. J. Econom. Perspect. 33:43–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Buser T, Niederle M, Oosterbeek H (2014) Gender, competitiveness, and career choices. Quart. J. Econom. 129:1409–1447.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Buser T, Peter N, Wolter SC (2017) Gender, competitiveness, and study choices in high school: Evidence from Switzerland. Amer. Econom. Rev. 107:125–130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cárdenas J-C, 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. 83:11–23.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Croson R, Gneezy U (2009) Gender differences in preferences. J. Econom. Lit. 42:448–474.Crossref, Google Scholar
• De Sousa J, Niederle M (2021) Trickle-down effects of affirmative action: A case study in France. Technical Report, Mimeo.Google Scholar
• Dreber A, Gerdes C, Gränsmark P (2013) Beauty queens and battling knights: Risk taking and attractiveness in chess. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 90:1–18.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dreber A, von Essen E, Ranehill E (2014) Gender and competition in adolescence: Task matters. Exp. Econom. 17:154–172.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elo AE (1978) The Rating of Chessplayers, Past and Present (Arco Publishing, New York).Google Scholar
• European Commission (2016) She Figures 2015: Gender in research and innovation. Technical Report, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
• Fernández R (2011) Does culture matter? Handbook of Social Economics 1:481–510.Google Scholar
• Filippin A, Crosetto P (2016) A reconsideration of gender differences in risk attitudes. Management Sci. 62:3138–3160.Link, Google Scholar
• Fryer RG, Levitt S (2010) An empirical analysis of the gender gap in mathematics. Amer. Econom. J. Appl. Econom. 2:210–240.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gerdes C, Gränsmark P (2010) Strategic behavior across gender: A comparison of female and male expert chess players. Labour Econom. 17:766–775.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gillen B, Snowberg E, Yariv L (2019) Experimenting with measurement error: Techniques with applications to the Caltech Cohort Study. J. Political Econom. 127:1826–775.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Rustichini A (2004) Gender and competition at a young age. Amer. Econom. Rev. 94:377–381.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Leonard KL, List JA (2009) Gender differences in competition: Evidence from a matrilineal and a patriarchal society. Econometrica 77:1637–1863.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Niederle M, Rustichini A (2003) Performance in competitive environments: Gender differences. Quart. J. Econom. 118:1049–1074.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guryan J, Hurst E, Kearney M (2008) Parental education and parental time with children. J. Econom. Perspect. 22:23–46.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hausmann R, Bekhouche Y, Tyson L, Zahidi S (2013) The global gender gap report. Report, World Economic Forum, Geneva.Google Scholar
• Herbert JH, Dinh KT (1989) A note on bias from proxy variables with systematic errors. Econom. Lett. 30:207–209.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Imbens GW (2004) Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: A review. Rev. Econom. Statist. 86:4–29.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Inzlicht M, Schmader T (2012) Stereotype Threat: Theory, Process, and Application (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Iriberri N, Rey-Biel P (2017) Stereotypes are only a threat when beliefs are reinforced: On the sensitivity of gender differences in performance under competition to information provision. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 135:99–111.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Iriberri N, Rey-Biel P (2019) Competitive pressure widens the gender gap in performance: Evidence from a two-stage competition in mathematics. Econom. J. (Lond.). 129:1863–1893.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lavy V (2013) Gender differences in market competitiveness in a real workplace: Evidence from performance-based pay tournaments among teachers. Econom. J. (Lond.). 123:540–573.Google Scholar
• Lundberg S, Stearns J (2019) Women in economics: Stalled progress. J. Econom. Perspect. 33:3–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• National Association for Law Placement (2016) Report on diversity in U.S. law firms. Technical Report, National Association for Law Placement.Google Scholar
• Neumark D (2012) Detecting discrimination in audit and correspondence studies. J. Hum. Resour. 47:1128–1157.Google Scholar
• Niederle M (2016) Gender. Kagel J, Roth AE, eds. Handbook of Experimental Economics, 2nd ed. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ), 481–553.Google Scholar
• Niederle M, Vesterlund L (2007) Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much? Quart. J. Econom. 122:1067–1101.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Niederle M, Vesterlund L (2011) Gender and competition. Annual Rev. Econom. 3:601–630.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pande R, Ford D (2011) Gender quotas and female leadership: A review. Working paper, World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Paserman MD (2007) Gender differences in performance in competitive environments: Evidence from professional tennis players. Working Paper, IZA n. 2834.Google Scholar
• Schelling TC (2006) Micromotives and Macrobehavior (W.W. Norton & Company, New York).Google Scholar
• Shan X (2020) Does minority status drive women out of male-dominated fields? Technical Report, Mimeo.Google Scholar
• Shurchkov O (2012) Under pressure: Gender differences in output quality and quantity under competition and time constraints. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 10:1189–1213.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smerdon D, Hu H, McLennan A, von Hippel W, Albrecht S (2020) Female chess players show typical stereotype-threat effects: Commentary on Stafford (2018). Psychol. Sci. 31:756–759.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith J, Todd P (2005) Rejoinder. J. Econometrics 125:365–375.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stoddard O, Karpowitz C, Preece J (2020) Strength in numbers: A field experiment in gender, influence, and group dynamics. Discussion paper, IZA DP No. 13741, IZA Institute of Labor Economics.Google Scholar
• Walton GM, Murphy MC, Ryan AM (2015) Stereotype threat in organizations: Implications for equity and performance. Annual Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2:523–550.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williams R (2016) Understanding and interpreting generalized ordered logit models. J. Math. Sociol. 40:7–20.Crossref, Google Scholar