Gender, beauty and support in academia

Gender, beauty and support in academia:

Gender, beauty and support in academia:evidence from a �eld experiment

Magdalena SmykMichaª Krawczyk

Findings from the GENDEQU ProjectUniversity of Warsaw

June 22, 2016


Table of contents

1 Motivation

2 Hypothesis

3 Study 1

4 Study 2

5 Conclusions


Motivation

Broad motivation

Huge gender gap at higher academic positions...

This is partly due to gender di�erences in academic productivity. . .

. . . which tends to be di�cult to explain in terms of abilities orpreferences


Motivation

Broad motivation





Motivation

Broad motivation





Motivation

Support in the academia - previous literature

Participation in social networks increase probability of receiving jobo�er (McDonald, 2011) and scienti�c productivity (Reagans andZuckerman, 2001).

Colussi (2015): editor's former PhD students and faculty colleaguesimprove their publication outcomes

Balliet et al. (2001) meta analysis: more cooperation in male-maleinteractions

Di�erences in reported experience between women and men:

Mentoring (Chandler, 1996)

Possibly collaboration (Gersick et al. 2000), but Long (1992), VanRijnsoever et al. (2008) found no di�erences and McDowell et al.(2006) only in historical data.


Motivation

Support in the academia - previous literature

Participation in social networks increase probability of receiving jobo�er (McDonald, 2011) and scienti�c productivity (Reagans andZuckerman, 2001).

Colussi (2015): editor's former PhD students and faculty colleaguesimprove their publication outcomes

Balliet et al. (2001) meta analysis: more cooperation in male-maleinteractions

Di�erences in reported experience between women and men:

Mentoring (Chandler, 1996)

Possibly collaboration (Gersick et al. 2000), but Long (1992), VanRijnsoever et al. (2008) found no di�erences and McDowell et al.(2006) only in historical data.


Hypothesis

Can we blame the �old-boys network�?

Are (male) scholars more willing to �lend a hand� toa male researcher than a female?


Study 1

Study 1 (Data Request)

Field experiment

247 papers (recent EE, JEBO, GEB papers reporting experimentsthat meet certain criteria)

Ask for raw data from their experiments

E-mails from two accounts:

Female studentMale student

Randomly chosen samples of subjects:

equal distribution of male and female subjectsthree geographical regions (Europe, Australia and Asia, Americas).

A reminder after three weeks


Study 1


Field experiment









Study 1


Field experiment









Study 1


Field experiment









Study 1


Field experiment









Study 1


Measure of success - RR

Response Rate = number of responses we received/ number ofe-mails sent (successfully)

Measure of success - CR

Compliance rate = number of datasets we received/number ofe-mails sent


Study 1




Measure of success - CR

Compliance rate = number of datasets we received/number ofe-mails sent


Study 1

Study 1 (Data Request) - RESULTS

Female Student Male Student

No. of requests 100 105

Response Rate 75% 74.3%MWW test (p-value) 0.91Marginal e�ect -0.01 (insigni�cant)

Compliance Rate 34% 35.2%MWW test (p-value) 0.85Marginal e�ect -0.02 (insigni�cant)


Study 1

Study 1 (Data Request) - RESULTS

Female Student Male Student

No. of requests 100 105

Response Rate 75% 74.3%MWW test (p-value) 0.91Marginal e�ect -0.01 (insigni�cant)

Compliance Rate 34% 35.2%MWW test (p-value) 0.85Marginal e�ect -0.02 (insigni�cant)


Study 2

Study 2

Extension

10 �elds of study: psychology, sociology, economics, mathematics,law, computer science, philosophy, medicine, physics and chemistry

Two types of request (much smaller):

Article treatment � we ask for full text of subject's paperMeeting treatment � we ask for a meeting during o�ce hours orSkype/phone call to discuss possible mentoring for graduate studies

Additional dimension: physical attractiveness


Study 2

Study 2

Extension






Study 2

Study 2

Extension






Study 2

Physical attractiveness

pre-study: pictures with the highest and the lowest "attractivness"average rank were chosen

no di�erences in other dimensions; especially intelligence ranks

gmail picture + website link


Study 2






Study 2






Study 2

Study 2

Sampling

One hundred top faculties from QS World University Rankings

Four (randomly chosen) scholars from each faculty

Faculties without websites or without list of employees � excluded

Article Treatment � 1287 scholars (discarding those with no knownpapers in English)

Meeting Treatment � 1488 scholars

No gender balance in the sample (male majority)


Study 2

Study 2

Sampling

One hundred top faculties from QS World University Rankings

Four (randomly chosen) scholars from each faculty

Faculties without websites or without list of employees � excluded

Article Treatment � 1287 scholars (discarding those with no knownpapers in English)

Meeting Treatment � 1488 scholars

No gender balance in the sample (male majority)


Study 2

Study 2



Article Treatment - measure of success (CR)

Compliance rate = number of full texts we received/ number ofe-mails sent

Meeting Treatment - measure of success (CR)

Compliance rate = number of meetings scheduled or o�ered/number of e-mails sent


Study 2

Study 2








Study 2

Study 2








Study 2

Study 2 (Article Treatment) - RESULTS

Attractive Unattractive Attractive UnattractiveFemale Female Male Male

No. of requests 343 307 337 300

Response Rate 56.6% 67.1% 63.2% 62.4%

MWW test (p-value)(vs. attractive female) 0.006 0.08 0.08(vs. unattractive female) 0.3 0.33(vs. attractive male) 0.97

Compliance Rate 49% 60% 56.7% 54.8%



Study 2

Study 2 (Article Treatment) - RESULTS


No. of requests 343 307 337 300

Response Rate 56.6% 67.1% 63.2% 62.4%


Compliance Rate 49% 60% 56.7% 54.8%



Study 2

Study 2 (Meeting Treatment) - RESULTS


No. of requests 370 378 374 366

Response Rate 45.7% 47.6% 43.9% 44.3%


Compliance Rate 29.2% 34.4% 27% 27.6%



Study 2

Study 2 (Meeting Treatment) - RESULTS


No. of requests 370 378 374 366

Response Rate 45.7% 47.6% 43.9% 44.3%


Compliance Rate 29.2% 34.4% 27% 27.6%



Study 2

Study 2 (probit) - RESULTS

Article Article Meeting Meetingtreatment treatment treatment treatmentresponse compliance response compliance

attractive female -0.08* -0.11*** 0.02 0.02unattractive female 0.03 0.18 0.05 0.09***unattractive male -0.02 -0.06 -0.005 0.001female scholar -0.05 -0.07** -0.09*** -0.09***

Observations 1287 1287 1488 1488

Notes: Marginal e�ects from probit regressions; reference category is attractive male;regressions include subjects' characteristics (gender, university region, universityranking position, �eld of study), date of sending the request and year of the paperpublication (in Article treatment);*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.


Study 2

Robustness check and additional dimensions

Task:

No interaction of genders

Stronger results (higher marginal e�ect) in the subsample of subjectswho has G-Talk option available

Lack of �eld-speci�c e�ects

Nr of unique vistors on websites = 44% of the nr of subjects

Attractive senders websites more popular by 10 pp on average

Refusals in the Meeting Treatment

55/124 (males) to 34/111 (females) negative e-mail withexplanation why someone cannot meet the reqeustor


Conclusions

Conclusions

GOOD NEWS!

No gender bias in responding to or full�lling requests

This result seems robust across �elds and treatments

BUT...

Attractivness can play a role � but only in the case of femalestudents

There seems to be an interaction with treatment

Cautios interpretation: female students considered less competentbut more likable


Conclusions

Thank you!


Conclusions

Thank you!

Date post:	22-Jan-2018
Category:	Economy & Finance
Upload:	grape
View:	177 times
Download:	1 times

Gender, beauty and support in academia

Economy & Finance