IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mnt/wpaper/1704.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Gender Differences to Relative Performance Feedback: A Field Experiment in Education

Author

Listed:
  • José María Cabrera
  • Alejandro Cid

Abstract

Individuals care about both their absolute performance and their performance relative to others. For example, workers satisfaction is affected not only by their nominal wage but also by the comparison of their salaries relative to colleagues. We analyze the effect of providing relative performance feedback using a field experiment with university students. Untreated students misplace themselves in the grade distribution. Poor performing students over report their placement (they say that they have a better position in the classroom ranking than they actually have). On the other hand, good students (especially women) under place themselves: they report that they don’t perform as well as they actually do. We experimentally change the information that treated students have, so they know exactly how they perform relative to their peers. We find that the information feedback has asymmetric effects for men and women. Treated men report higher satisfaction with their GPA while treated women report less satisfaction, regardless of their position in the grade distribution. We also show that this non-monetary incentive caused a decrease in women academic performance. Two possible channels may explain our results: women may shy away from competition and they face an increasing marginal cost of effort. More information is not always beneficial for everybody.

Suggested Citation

  • José María Cabrera & Alejandro Cid, 2017. "Gender Differences to Relative Performance Feedback: A Field Experiment in Education," Documentos de Trabajo/Working Papers 1704, Facultad de Ciencias Empresariales y Economia. Universidad de Montevideo..
  • Handle: RePEc:mnt:wpaper:1704
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www2.um.edu.uy/fcee_papers/2017/Gender_Differences_to_Relative_Performance_Feedback_A_Field_Experiment_in_Education.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bertrand, Marianne, 2011. "New Perspectives on Gender," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 17, pages 1543-1590, Elsevier.
    2. Erzo F. P. Luttmer, 2005. "Neighbors as Negatives: Relative Earnings and Well-Being," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 120(3), pages 963-1002.
    3. David Card & Alexandre Mas & Enrico Moretti & Emmanuel Saez, 2012. "Inequality at Work: The Effect of Peer Salaries on Job Satisfaction," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2981-3003, October.
    4. Azmat, Ghazala & Iriberri, Nagore & Bagues, Manuel, 2016. "What you don't know... Can't hurt you? A field experiment on relative performance feedback in higher education," CEPR Discussion Papers 11201, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    6. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 2008. "Men, Women and Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 113, pages 1061-1073, Elsevier.
    7. Leonardo Bursztyn & Robert Jensen, 2015. "How Does Peer Pressure Affect Educational Investments?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(3), pages 1329-1367.
    8. Azmat, Ghazala & Bagues, Manuel & Cabrales, Antonio & Iriberri, Nagore, 2016. "What You Don't Know... Can't Hurt You? A Field Experiment on Relative Performance Feedback in Higher Education," IZA Discussion Papers 9853, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Ghazala Azmat & Manuel Bagues & Antonio Cabrales & Nagore Iriberri, 2016. "What You Don’t Know... Can’t Hurt You? A Field Experiment on Relative Performance," Working Papers 788, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marianne Bernatzky & José María Cabrera & Alejandro Cid, 2017. "Frequency of testing Lessons from a field experiment in higher education," Documentos de Trabajo/Working Papers 1703, Facultad de Ciencias Empresariales y Economia. Universidad de Montevideo..
    2. Le Thanh Binh, 2023. "Effect of Peer Information and Peer Communication on Working Performance," Working Papers 202309, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Economics.
    3. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Mesa-Vázquez, Ernesto & Rivero-Garrido, Noelia, 2020. "Gender differences in overplacement in familiar and unfamiliar tasks: Far more similarities," MPRA Paper 104426, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Brade, Raphael & Himmler, Oliver & Jäckle, Robert, 2022. "Relative performance feedback and the effects of being above average — field experiment and replication," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    5. Brade, Raphael & Himmler, Oliver & Jäckle, Robert, 2018. "Normatively Framed Relative Performance Feedback – Field Experiment and Replication," MPRA Paper 88830, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jeffrey T. Denning & Richard Murphy & Felix Weinhardt, 2023. "Class Rank and Long-Run Outcomes," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 105(6), pages 1426-1441, November.
    2. Murphy, Richard & Weinhardt, Felix, 2020. "Top of the Class: The Importance of Ordinal Rank," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 87(6), pages 2777-2826.
    3. Damgaard, Mette Trier & Nielsen, Helena Skyt, 2018. "Nudging in education," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 313-342.
    4. Fumagalli, Elena & Fumagalli, Laura, 2022. "Subjective well-being and the gender composition of the reference group: Evidence from a survey experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 196-219.
    5. Oege Dijk, 2017. "For whom does social comparison induce risk-taking?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 82(4), pages 519-541, April.
    6. Roth, Paula, 2020. "Inequality, Relative Deprivation and Financial Distress: Evidence from Swedish Register Data," Working Paper Series 1374, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    7. Booth, Alison & Cardona-Sosa, Lina & Nolen, Patrick, 2014. "Gender differences in risk aversion: Do single-sex environments affect their development?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 126-154.
    8. Hanousek, Jan & Shamshur, Anastasiya & Tresl, Jiri, 2019. "Firm efficiency, foreign ownership and CEO gender in corrupt environments," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 344-360.
    9. Yukio Koriyama & Ali Ihsan Ozkes, 2017. "Condorcet Jury Theorem and Cognitive Hierarchies: Theory and Experiments," Working Papers halshs-01485748, HAL.
    10. Ulrik Hvidman & Hans Henrik Sievertsen, 2021. "High-Stakes Grades and Student Behavior," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 56(3), pages 821-849.
    11. Grohmann, Antonia & Hübler, Olaf & Kouwenberg, Roy & Menkhoff, Lukas, 2021. "Financial literacy: Thai middle-class women do not lag behind," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 31(C).
    12. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin & Janna Heider, 2015. "A Study of Outcome Reporting Bias Using Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 61(1), pages 239-262.
    13. D'Ambrosio, Conchita & Clark, Andrew E. & Barazzetta, Marta, 2018. "Unfairness at work: Well-being and quits," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 307-316.
    14. Leites, Martín & Rivero, Analía & Salas, Gonzalo, 2024. "The positionality of goods and the positional concern’s origin," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    15. Leonie Gerhards & Michael Kosfeld, 2020. "I (Don't) Like You! But Who Cares? Gender Differences in Same-Sex and Mixed-Sex Teams," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(627), pages 716-739.
    16. Jung, SeEun & Choe, Chung & Oaxaca, Ronald L., 2018. "Gender wage gaps and risky vs. secure employment: An experimental analysis," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 112-121.
    17. Anat Bracha & Chaim Fershtman, 2013. "Competitive Incentives: Working Harder or Working Smarter?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(4), pages 771-781, April.
    18. Kai Barron & Christina Gravert, 2022. "Confidence and Career Choices: An Experiment," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 124(1), pages 35-68, January.
    19. Eva Ranehill & Roberto A. Weber, 2022. "Gender preference gaps and voting for redistribution," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(3), pages 845-875, June.
    20. Fischer, Mira & Sliwka, Dirk, 2018. "Confidence in knowledge or confidence in the ability to learn: An experiment on the causal effects of beliefs on motivation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 122-142.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mnt:wpaper:1704. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Mathias Ribeiro (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fceumuy.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.