The Influence of Decision Contexts and Role Models on Female Risk Preferences

If you missed the last WAPPP Seminar, you wasted an opportunity to meet a former Jeopardy! contestant who is actually using Daily Doubles for more than just game show glory. Heidi Liu, Ph.D. Candidate in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and J.D. Candidate at the Harvard Law School, used a large dataset of Jeopardy! contestant betting patterns that allowed her to test whether female contestants exhibited different attitudes towards risk depending on the "gender context".

Heidi Liu, PhD and JD candidate at Harvard and former Jeopardy! contestant

How does this work? Heidi had a group of former contestants and another larger group of survey responders rate over 1,200 categories in the game show on the likelihood that men or women would correctly answer a question from that category. The categories where men were expected to perform better were coded as 'male categories' in the dataset, and in the same way, those where women were expected to do better were coded as 'female categories'. After noting that male and female contestants actually performed equally well on both types of categories, Lui presented her findings on the betting patterns of male and female contestants.

She found interesting differences between the genders. Men exhibit aggressive betting patterns across all categories. In contrast, women bet less aggressively overall. This result goes in accordance with robust evidence in the existing literature that categorizes risk-taking as an attribute of the masculine psychology. But the key contribution of Liu's research lies one level deeper. It turns out that women were found to be more risk averse when they were betting on 'male' categories, in which they are societally expected to underperform, than on the 'female' categories, where they were expected to do well. In other words, when dealing with a more masculine context, women tended to 'play it safe'.

Women are more likely to take risks when they're dealing with
more feminine contexts, regardless of ability

The Jeopardy! study is only one of the four studies that Liu presented to show how context can influence women's attitudes towards risk. She is building on previous research that identified increased risk-taking by men in physical tasks or financial decision making, but found no gender difference in risk attitudes in contexts such as prosocial heroism, as exhibited by some Holocaust survivors or even kidney donors, where women were just as likely to risk their lives or their health to save somebody else. Liu studied whether the gender content of certain contexts would be useful to predict women's attitudes towards risk. In one of the studies, she looked at women's decisions regarding a travel destination. When deciding on a destination for a professional conference, a male setting, women were much more likely to go with the safer option; in contrast when they were making a decision about a vacation destination, a more female stereotypical task, they tended to opt for the risky option. She reported similar findings for the other two studies. Women were more likely to choose risky options when making shopping decisions and less when making investment decisions, and the same happened with product choices.

Helping women become more comfortable with risk in male-dominated environments is important because they are contexts that greatly reward such behavior. Common attributes listed by venture capital firms, for example, as desirable in entrepreneurs often include words like 'aggressive', 'competitive', 'ambitious', 'relentless', 'with an appetite for risk', among many others that signal risk aversion as a negative. For this reason, Liu set up two additional studies that consider possible interventions to move women into risk-seeking territory. They focus on a critical aspect for any person's professional career: Role models.

Her first one exposed people to three different narratives of women who exhibited different degrees of counter-stereotypical behaviors and relatability. Only exposure to the story about a woman who was highly counter-stereotypical but also highly relatable had the effect of increasing risk-seeking among women. This means that the ideal role models may not necessarily be hyper-successful and unattainable, but rather, regular people who reach success on their own terms. The second study analyzes survey data from an Indian tech firm and finds that women who have a female supervisor are more likely to take risks at work. This goes in accordance with the results from the first study.

Heidi Lui is continuing her research on this topic as she works towards her PhD. Stay tuned to her work to continue learning about ways to get less women to play it safe and more women to just go for it.

How Gender Stereotypes Constrain Women in STEM

Out of the 196 people who have been Nobel laureates in Physics, how many would you guess are women? Maybe 10 or 20? Try two. How about for Chemistry? Out of the total 166 laureates, only four have been women. Keep in mind that this would be double-counting Marie Courie, who received a Nobel Prize in both. This is just one indicator of the degree of diversity in the science fields. Why is this so and how is it a problem?

Corinne Moss-Racusin, Ph.D. has something to say about these questions, and she did, during this week's HKS WAPPP Seminar. She is currently conducting research on how gender stereotyping is a contributing cause to the under representation of women in STEM fields. Prior to her current work, research had shown that there are problems such as inequitable access to science resources for women, such as lab space, there was experimental evidence of bias in other fields, and there was anecdotal evidence of bias provided by STEM students. However, to provide more conclusive knowledge of the biases in the field, Moss-Racusin and her colleagues conducted experimental studies that provide insightful results.

Dr. Moss-Racusin at the HKS WAPPP Seminar

Her team was the first to run an experimental study about bias in the STEM context. They asked faculty to evaluate identical applications for a research position at a lab and rate them on  their competence, comment on how likely they would be to mentor such an applicant, make a hiring decision, and provide a figure for the salary they would pay the applicant. One group was given applications belonging to a person named "John", and the other group assessed identical applications belonging to a "Jennifer". The study finds no effect of the faculty member's race, field of expertise, gender, or background on the outcome. In contrast, there is a strong effect related to the applicant's gender. "Jennifer" was receiving about $4,000 less in starting salary, was rated as less competent, and was less likely to get mentoring. In other words, women are facing a negative bias, and it comes from men as well as other women. Moss-Racusin explained that this is "likely because we are all equally exposed to the same cultural biases... they might be being enacted by well-meaning individuals, they’re still biased choices”, she concluded.

It seems that we are all equally biased.

Dr. Moss-Racusin's team ran a second experiment. They recruited a group of undergraduate students unfamiliar with the research in this field and presented them with two articles about bias against women in STEM. The articles only differed on the punchline: One said the research showed that there was a bias and the other concluded that there was not. The students' attitudes towards STEM were measured after reading the articles. The researchers found that students presented with evidence of bias reported increased awareness of it, less sense of belonging in a STEM field, and reduced STEM aspirations as compared to their counterparts in the other group. The same results applied for men and women. This means that awareness of the bias seems to deter students from adventuring into the STEM field. What is most worrying, given these results, is that women on average tend to report much higher awareness levels about bias than men. In the real world, their awareness may be deterring them from entering STEM career paths. This is bad news for all because STEM jobs tend to be better paid and there is a predicted shortage of workers for the coming decades.

Finally, Moss-Racusin's research moved into what Professor Hannah Riley-Bowles called "daring" territory for scholars: practice. Looking for a way to improve diversity trainings that have produced mixed results, she partnered with professional filmmakers to create twelve high-quality films that communicated the findings of the latest research on gender bias. She then measured the difference between individuals randomly assigned to view this material versus a control group who was exposed to similar videos but which did not touch on the topic. Her results show that whether it is a narrative film that shows the findings in a story-telling manner, or a documentary-style intellectual approach, there is an effect that the videos can have that increases awareness and reduces gender bias, and it can last at least six months. Worthy of note was that the 'intellectual' format seemed to have a bigger effect, especially when the test subjects were STEM faculty  members.

Why should we care? As was mentioned, a recent White House report predicts that we may need at least a million more STEM majors to respond to the economy's needs. There is a large potential available in the female workforce to supply this expertise, "gender parity really is in the interest of our national competitiveness", as Dr. Moss-Racusin puts it. And moreover, the problem is not fixing itself. Her research finds no cohort effects, which means it is not a generational issue. The under representation of women in this fields is not going away unless we work at it. Finally, research has shown that diverse teams produce better results, so if we do not diversify science, we all stand to lose. 

Check out the event's page to listen to the podcast of the talk and take a look at the presentation that Dr. Moss-Racusin kindly shared with us.

How ‘No’ Can Get Women to the Top

For the past decade and a half, scholars have examined why American women are in very few corporate managerial positions compared to their male counterparts, despite representing 30% of elite MBA programs. The disparity is usually explained in several ways: (1) women have different job preferences, (2) women and men have performance differences when it comes to managerial tasks (i.e. women aren’t as good at these jobs), and (3) women face discrimination in the workplace, which prevents them from getting to the top. Recently, however, some researchers have begun to explain the problem with a bit more nuance.

Lise Vesterlund, an Economics Professor at the University of Pittsburgh, discussed an alternative theory based on research she conducted with coauthors Linda Babcock and Laurie Weingart, both professors at Carnegie Mellon University. In this week’s seminar, Breaking the Glass Ceiling with “No”: Gender Differences in Declining Requests for Non-Promotable Tasks, Professor Vesterlund looked at the assignment of undesirable tasks to better understand the issue.

She based her research on the premise that employees who accept more non-promotable tasks are promoted less often. A survey she conducted among MBA students indicated that women were more likely than men to accept such tasks, largely due to fear of the professional consequences of saying "no." As an economics professor, Vesterlund wanted to look at both the potential demand and supply side causes of this gap. The demand side is whether women are asked to perform non-promotable tasks more often than men, while the supply side is women’s response to such requests.

In a study involving freshmen and sophomores at Carnegie Mellon, Vesterlund et al placed students in random, anonymous groups of three, where they were tasked with hitting a button to make an “investment” that benefitted every member of the group, but gave the least to the individual who actually hit the button. This action represented a non-promotable, undesirable task in a corporate setting that needed to be completed despite no one wanting to do it. In a second part of the study, students had to ask another member of their group to hit the button for them.

The results revealed that both the demand and supply sides of this issue were to blame. While the vast majority of students pressed the button in the last possible seconds of each round – revealing that they were likely motivated by desperate self-interest and not altruism – women pressed the button significantly more often than men. In the second part of the study, Vesterlund also found that both men and women were more likely to ask a woman in their group to hit the button. In response to this, female participants complied 75% of the times that they were asked, while male participants’ decisions were split 50/50.

Vesterlund argued that since beliefs about women’s propensity to accept non-promotable tasks are central to this problem, women saying “no” more often might actually make a significant difference. She also suggested that some simple institutional changes, such as random assignment to event planning, committees, and other undesirable tasks, could allow women to take on more promotable assignments.

The Work-Family Narrative and How It's Hurting Women

Gender inequality in the higher echelons of the corporate world has made the news a lot lately – from the UK to Nigeria to Ireland, but the discussion at this week’s WAPPP seminar, "The Work-Family Narrative as a Social Defense: Explaining the Persistence of Gender Inequality in Organizations," focused on the discrepancy in American professional service firms. Despite large gains at the associate level of such organizations, where female employees now comprise roughly half of the workforce, women are severely underrepresented in elite positions. According to the 2013 Catalyst Census, only 15% of C-Suite executives in Fortune 500 companies are women.

Robin Ely, a Professor of Business Administration and Senior Associate Dean at Harvard Business School, presented her research and hypothesis on why such inequality persists. She and her coauthors Irene Padavic and Erin Reid conducted interviews with 107 professionals in a mid-size global consulting firm, where 90% of partners were male. Most employees surveyed said they believed that the inequity was due to the fact that women are disproportionally affected by personal obligations, which can hold them back in a corporate environment where 70-hour weeks are common.

This idea isn’t new; it has been circulated in the news media for over a decade since it was first prominently discussed in a 2003 New York Times Magazine article titled, “Why Don’t More Women Get to the Top? They Choose Not To.”

Professor Ely has an alternative hypothesis, however: that this phenomenon is caused by overselling and over delivery (i.e. overpromising) on the part of partners, paired with associates’ compliance in order to stand out as strong employees.

This creates a 24/7 work culture within elite firms that makes it virtually impossible to balance one’s personal and professional lives, for both men and women. Instead of addressing this culture head on, Ely et al argue that employees use a social defense (a collective arrangement used by an organization to protect against threats and conflicts) to fend off the anxiety this conflict causes.

This social defense splits the professional and personal spheres and then projects the latter onto women. By psychologically assigning women to the private sphere (what Ely calls “privatizing women”), organizations perpetuate the idea that women will prioritize their personal life over their professional one, making them less able to take on management work.

Unfortunately, policy changes may not be enough to resolve this pervasive issue. For example, many elite firms have improved their family leave policies, but women still overwhelmingly use these policies compared to men. Ely argues that a shift in culture is needed, paired with dialogue that references the changes and what they mean for the narrative of the organization.

Download the seminar podcast (right click and save)

Should women be encouraged to compete?

An article on “The Confidence Gap” between men and women has been making the rounds this week. In it, Katty Kay and Claire Shipman argue that women too often doubt their own abilities as compared to men, leading to an imbalance in women’s representation in most fields. This may have to do with socialization, evolutionary biology, the structure of our social systems, or some combination.

In his seminar on whether “boys and girls respond differently to academic competition,” Prof. Robert Jensen of the University of Pennsylvania explored how this carries over into the realm of competitiveness. He and his co-authors used a real-life experiment in which a math and verbal prep technology suddenly introduced a peer competition in the form of a “leader board.” Prior to the leader board, students would simply answer a series of questions and be told, individually, how well they’d done. After the “leader board”, students were given points for correct answers and the names of the top-three point-earners were displayed for all the participants to see.

Before the points system, girls tended to perform better in both English and math. But after the introduction of the competitive system, girls performed worse than they previously had, and also worse than boys, particularly in math.

Whether it had to do with social stigma of being publicly seen as a “nerd” or just the aversion to and stress associated with competition is unclear. But Professor Jensen concludes that a competitive system simply wasn’t conducive to better learning outcomes for women in this education technology.

So should we reduce competition in how we raise and educate girls? As one seminar participant remarked, “we live in a society of competition in every sphere; to discourage that is to encourage girls to opt-out of success. Instead, perhaps we should raise our daughters and sons the same way so that they can both learn to compete effectively.” Indeed, as Elizabeth Plank writes, instead of telling women to change their personalities, maybe it's time we take a look at the entire system and adjust all of the structures that hold them back.

To this, WAPPP Executive Director Victoria Budson responds that, “Whenever the frame and context for any competition is set in today’s world, it will necessarily be biased---by gendered components, racial components. So we need to understand  what choices are made and how those choices impact outcomes. It’s not that one shouldn’t compete…but to create a new competitive frame.

“When you understand what the mechanisms are and what they produce, you can then guide how institutions create structures. Because whenever we set up structures, we’re really creating pathways toward outcomes that we can predict when we study them effectively. So rather than telling us how we should feel about this, all of these studies are just data that can help us create a world where the majority of our talent is effectively utilized.”

WAPPP Director Iris Bohnet adds that we should do both: “we should enable people to be competitive in the world that we live in, but we also have to change the world to make it easier for everyone, based on whatever preferences they have, to survive and compete in that world.”

Photo Source

Are Women Punished for Seeking Power?

One of the catch-22s of gender relations these days is that women are hemmed by both realistic power structures that do exist, as well as by perceptions of what ‘should’ exist.

Specifically regarding gender stereotypes, many people expect not only that women are more modest in their presentation and interactions, but that they should be more modest.

So what happens when women violate these stereotypes?

That was the question that Professor Victoria Briscoll of Yale University posed in her seminar on “Women and Power: Hard to Earn, Difficult to Signal, and Easy to Lose.” She broke her answer into three parts.

First, women often have to manage people’s impressions of their rise to power. Their intention of seeking power and authority appear inconsistent with people’s perceptions that women should be communal and not dominating. So even female politicians like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Patty Murray, who are essentially in the business of power, often downplay the fact that they are there, insisting that they “never expected to run for office.”

Second, once in power, men and women often communicate differently to continue this impression management. According to a great deal of social psychological research, ‘powerful’ people are often given a license to talk more than people with less power, who signal deference. Moreover, women tend to lead in more democratic, non-hierarchical fashions than men. So in spaces like the US Senate floor, men talk to display power, while women tend to talk to establish and maintain relationships and advocate for communal rather than personal causes. This is often in the effort to avoid backlash.



Finally, women’s power is often more fragile and easily lost than that of men. In the case of expressing anger, women are almost always penalized for this, while angry white men are sometimes rewarded for being assertive. But when women can explain their anger away to an external source, women are rewarded.

So clearly there’s a lot of work for society to do. To get there, do women need to keep on adjusting what they do? How can we get societal expectations to change in the long run?

Photo Source

Did the plough doom us to millennia of gender inequality?

'Women are supposed to stay at home and raise children.' 'Men are supposed to work and bring home money to provide for the family.'

Throughout the world, we have many ideas of which gender should be responsible for what---perhaps the most fundamental and universal has been employment roles. Why is that?

One theory has to do with the nature of work: the economic structures of "traditional" society were largely manual labor based, almost necessarily ensuring the centrality and dominance of the physically more muscular male in economic production. People have argued that this started with the plough thousands of years go: before the plough, men and women were equal economically in that both could till soil and gather food by hand with equal skill. Accordingly, they were largely equal socially, intellectually, and in terms of power.

But when the plough was invented, it required a great deal of upper body strength to produce more agricultural output. So the gathering work that women did became less economically relevant, and the remaining work was left to the physically stronger sex---by nature's course, this was usually the male. Most consequential economic activity became dependent on the successful physical performance of the male. This was furthered by the thought that women’s interaction with domesticated farm animals would reduce fertility levels.



In his seminar last week on “The Origins of Gender Roles: Women and The Plough,” Alberto Alesina of Harvard University explored the effects of this ancient technological innovation on today’s perception of gender roles. The fact that work was bifurcated along gender lines so long ago, he argues, has meant that these norms and expectations persist even centuries after humans moved beyond agriculture as the primary economic activity.

Controlling for things like ethnicity, politics, and geographic features, Professor Alesina and his colleagues matched up traditional and ancient plough usage with today’s women’s labor market participation and perceptions of gender equality and norms. They found that there is, in fact, a strong correlation between ancient plough usage and gender inequality today. That technology affected not just the realities of work, but also the norms, markets, institutions, and policies that were shaped around them.

Since then, however, we’ve seen some profound changes in economics. Urbanization and industrialization, for example, brought women back into the workforce in a large way and galvanized the women’s and labor rights movements---to say nothing of the service sector. And though today’s inequality may have its roots in ancient technologies, it is still propagated by harmful norms and narratives that we certainly can control.



Photo Source

Why (and how) we shouldn't have it all

Debates over whether women should lean in, lean out, have it all or just some have been raging over the last few years, with few clear answers. Should women emulate men? Adjust what they’re doing to gain power? Opt out entirely?

At this week’s WAPPP Seminar on “Different Ways of Not Having It All: Work, Care, and Gender Change in the New Economy,” NYU Sociologist Kathleen Gerson suggests that the answers can’t, and shouldn’t be that simple.

While women have made tremendous strides in the workplace and at home, we’re entering a whole new economic era, where the boundaries between work and home, local and global job markets, and part and full-time work are all blurring---to say nothing of changing gender norms in most vocations.

Meanwhile, even household norms are changing, with more women working outside the home even through a child’s life, work tensions affecting marital relationships, and greater expectations of parental involvement throughout a child’s life.

As a result, both economics and home life are changing and becoming even less secure: careers aren't quite the linear, predictable paths they used to be, nor are household expectations of, and demands on both partners.

There are three main ways that people are thinking about these changes:

• “Neotraditional” arrangements, in which both partners work and are committed to one another, but one partner “specializes” in care, while the other “specializes” in breadwinning
• “Self-Reliance,” where, even in committed relationships, both partners work to provide money and care in equal doses---without counting on the other.
• and “Gender flexibility,” in which there is an egalitarian sharing of earning and caretaking, but a vague meaning of equality: care and breadwinning are responsibilities assigned not by gender, just what needs to be done

Both men and women would prefer gender-flexibility as an ideal arrangement. But in practice, women tend to fall back to more self-reliant positions, while men reflexively tend toward neotraditional arrangements. This is partly because men are still under the subtle yet profound pressure of the male breadwinner ideal: a man who can’t support his family is unmarriageable and “isn’t a man.” Even equality is seen as chivalrous: “equality means the woman has a choice; but I don’t.”

In practice, a third of people are “neotraditionalists,” with fathers left managing time-demanding jobs. About a third of people are “on their own,” and are left to rear children by themselves or without a committed partner. One of six couples have reversed traditional roles, with women providing more financially, but this leading to resentment in the relationship. And another sixth are “equal, but exhausted.”

At the end of the day, these choices are not about gender, but universal hopes to have a balanced life with predictable work and secure relationships---all permutations of which will require trade-offs. The erosion of job and relationship security are permanent conditions with which we must all contend; to do so we may have to redefine the responsibilities of being a man and a woman in the modern world.




Photo Source

Does workplace equality come home?

Over the last few generations, many societies have made major strides towards gender equity, particularly in the public sphere. Some of this may come from the demands of economics of the industrial and post-industrial revolutions, others from changes in attitudes, but all over the world, women are coming back into the workplace.

So what effect is this having in households? What is the relationship between women’s income generation outside the house, and intra-household bargaining, i.e. housework shared between spouses?


Last week Kathleen McGinn and Maya Ruiz Castro of Harvard Business School presented some of their preliminary research on these very questions. They suspect that:

1. Women’s income and their involvement in societal leadership roles are shaped by both gender attitudes and intra-household bargaining outcomes, including the allocation of household work and childcare.
2. More equal distribution of household work and childcare between spouses and less traditional gender attitudes are associated with higher earnings, greater supervisory responsibility, less work-life conflict and greater life satisfaction for both men and women.

They’re currently analyzing data from the global 2002 International Social Survey Program to see whether things like 'who does the laundry?' or whether there’s additional help from grandparents might affect equality within marriage and income. Meanwhile, how can public policy on parental leave and workplace equality affect changes in gender attitudes that are carried into the household?

Just last week, The New York Times published an article adding another dimension to the conversation: do women’s empowerment and intra-household bargaining, then, affect marriage dynamics, and in particular sexual behavior?

While having a “peer marriage” in which both partners do housework and childcare has become a bigger factor in women’s marital satisfaction, the article finds that, very often, “the less gender differentiation, the less sexual desire.”

With all of these changes---in women’s workforce participation, intra-household bargaining power, sexuality, and power---will societies adjust their expectations accordingly?



Photo: Bertha Stallworth, age 21, inspects 40mm artillery cartridges at Frankford Arsenal during WWII. Source: National Archives, 208-NP-1WW-1

More Women Can Run (and should)

A few months ago, we looked at some of the hurdles that women face when running for elected office. In this week’s seminar, however, Kira Sanbonmatsu of Rutgers University discussed her new book with Susan Carroll on how, in fact, More Women Can Run.

It’s a strange paradox that on many counts, women are more politically involved than men---since 1980s, they’ve voted at a higher rate, for example---but still comprise less than ¼ of most state legislatures and less than 18% of the US Congress.

Sanbonmatsu and Carroll surveyed a number of successful female candidates for state legislature around the country for their views on electoral success. In spite of enduring impediments like male incumbency bias and the fact that women are often socialized to behave in certain ways, results from the survey provided three important reasons why and how the decision to run can be made easier for women.

First, successful female officials provided a vast array of answers on the qualifications necessary to run for office. Some said education and personability were vital, others suggested engagement with the community, still others said an enduring electoral base or fundraising ability was the key to success. The conclusion is that there are, in fact, no specific qualifications for electoral success, and successful women come from a wide diversity of backgrounds. Many more women are in fact qualified than realize it.

Second, the decision to run is often more related to a woman’s relationships and networks---certainly more so than for men. For example, a woman is more likely to run for office if a political party leader, spouse, or organization encourages her to do so, than she would be on her own volition. While this relational dependency seems like a barrier, it also means that women’s initial tendencies against running can be changed with a little encouragement; that their initial socialization can be nudged. Increasing women’s representation, then, might just be accomplished with some effective recruitment.

Lastly, some of the current gender disparity, in particular the fact that women’s representation in state legislatures has plateaued in recent years, has more to do with party composition than the role of women per se. While Democratic women hold 32.3% of their party's seats in state legislatures, Republican women hold 16.5%. Today, women are better represented as Democratic state legislators. Changes in partisan politics, then, have had consequences for overall representation of women. According to Sanbonmatsu, this should not be understood as a loss for women generally, but an opportunity for each party to include more women, both parties recruit more female candidates, particularly women of color.

Despite some of the other hurdles, more women can run with more ease than they think---and considering some of the benefits of having women represented, should.

Let's Talk About Gender

Today the 113^th Congress is getting sworn in. There is more gender diversity this time than ever before – 20 out of 100 Senators and 81 out of 435 Representatives are women. Still, the gender gap is evident.

There is also a gender diversity issue among people who like to learn about gender gaps. Among attendees of weekly WAPPP seminars last semester, the percentage of men in the room never got above 30 percent. And when 60 people crowded into the room for a particularly well-attended session on “Race, Gender and Dynamics of Social Hierarchy Reversal”, only 7 of them were men – 12 percent.

This is disappointing to me. I want to discuss gender with women and men, because social and political implications of gender affect all of us. Instead I face the situation that Debora Spar described best: 

“All too often, women are scared of raising the topic of gender with men, thinking it will brand them as radicals or troublemakers, while men are terrified of saying or doing anything that might classify them as politically incorrect. The result, of course, is that no one says anything productive at all.”

This observation stood out to me as a rarely-acknowledged truth, even though it was not the focus of her article.

In an attempt to spark dialogue, I asked a few of my male colleagues at the Harvard Kennedy School to share some thoughts on gender in the context of their personal and professional experiences. I will feature their posts over the next couple of weeks. 

If you are a male reader interested in contributing to these guest-blogger series, please contact me at anya_malkov@hks13.harvard.edu, and let’s talk about gender! 

Anya Malkov is an MPP candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School, a WAPPP Cultural Bridge Fellow, and an alumna of From Harvard Square to the Oval Office.

Under Pressure!

Papers, finals, job search, the holidays – the pressure of it all! I was hoping to learn in this seminar that being a woman would somehow improve my performance. What I did learn was not quite so straightforward, but still fascinating. Some experimental studies in recent years had found that in a mixed-sex environment, the pressure of competition improved men’s performance, but not women’s, and that women often opted out of competitive environments. Olga Shruchkov, Assistant Professor of Economics at Wellesley College, noticed something about those experiments. The “tasks” which subjects performed under competitive pressure were invariably math-oriented, like addition problems and mazes, and there was no range of performance quality, only right or wrong answers.

Shruchkov designed an experiment that would fill these gaps – a Boggle-like verbal task, a comparable math task and a difference between competitive pressure and time pressure. This experimental design was not only creative, but also rigorous, with relevant controls, task-consistency mechanisms and a whole range of variables to measure. The experiments replicated previous findings that under time pressure on math tasks men attained higher scores and had a higher propensity to select into tournaments.

The innovative experimental design also yielded important new insights. On verbal tasks under time pressure, women performed as well as men and had a similar propensity to enter competitions. In a verbal competition under time pressure, women did slightly better than men. Things really took off once the time pressure was lowered – women outperformed men on the verbal tasks under competition. On the math task with low time pressure, women and men performed similarly both with and without competition. Interestingly, giving more time for the math task doubled the number of women who elected to compete. So it’s not the pressure of the competition or inherent math abilities that were hurting the performance of women in earlier experiments – it was time!

Why did time help women so much more than the men? Making the competition about total points, not speed, allowed for a measurement of the quality dimension. A look at the kinds of words women were finding when given the time reveals an emphasis on quality – they made longer words and made fewer mistakes. The men, on the other hand, went for quantity of words and in the process lost points for misspellings and typos. Perhaps more women participated in the math tournament when they had more time, because it allowed them to check their calculations more thoroughly.

Professor Shruchkov was careful with drawing policy implications out of experimental results, but she suggested that take-home exams in math and science might help more girls excel in those subjects early on, which could get more of them interested in pursuing those careers. Personally, I am tempted to use the results to ask for a final paper extension right now! I wonder what Shruchkov tells her students when they try to do that. 

Anya Malkov is an MPP candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School, a WAPPP Cultural Bridge Fellow, and an alumna of From Harvard Square to the Oval Office.