Advertisement

Gender differences in sabotage: the role of uncertainty and beliefs

  • Simon DatoEmail author
  • Petra Nieken
Original Paper

Abstract

We study gender differences in relation to performance and sabotage in competitions. While we find no systematic gender differences in performance in the real effort task, we observe a strong gender gap in sabotage choices in our experiment. This gap is rooted in the uncertainty about the opponent’s sabotage: in the absence of information about the opponent’s sabotage choice, males expect to suffer from sabotage to a higher degree than females and choose higher sabotage levels themselves. If beliefs are exogenously aligned by implementing sabotage via strategy method, the gender gap in sabotage choices disappears. Moreover, providing a noisy signal about the sabotage level from which subjects might suffer leads to an endogenous alignment of beliefs and eliminates the gender gap in sabotage.

Keywords

Gender Sabotage Tournament Belief formation 

JEL Classification

J16 M12 C91 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the participants of the Economic Science Association Meeting, Heidelberg, SFB-TR 15 Young Researcher Workshop, Bonn, Stavanger Workshop on Incentives and Motivation, Stavanger, Economics Seminar Series University of East Anglia, Norwich, ULME Economics Seminar, University Ulm, 20th Colloquium on Personnel Economics, Zurich, EEA-ESEM 2018, Cologne, and in particular Subhasish Chowdhury, Matthias Kräkel, Anders Poulsen, Ed Lazear, Bettina Rockenbach, Dirk Sliwka, and Robert Sudgen for their helpful comments as well as Niklas Wagner for programming the experimental software. Financial support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), Grant SFB/TR 15, is gratefully acknowledged

Supplementary material

10683_2019_9613_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (176 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 176 KB)

References

  1. Amegashie, J. A. (2015). Sabotage in contests. In R. D. Congleton & A. L. Hillman (Eds.), Companion to the political economy of rent seeking, 9 (pp. 138–149). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  2. Andreoni, J., & Miller, J. (2002). Giving according to garp: An experimental test of the consistency of preferences for altruism. Econometrica, 70(2), 737–753.Google Scholar
  3. Azmat, G., & Iriberri, N. (2010). The importance of relative performance feedback information: Evidence from a natural experiment using high school students. Journal of Public Economics, 94(7), 435–452.Google Scholar
  4. Azmat, G., & Petrongolo, B. (2014). Gender and the labor market: What have we learned from field and lab experiments? Labour Economics, 30, 32–40.Google Scholar
  5. Balafoutas, L., Lindner, F., & Sutter, M. (2012). Sabotage in tournaments: Evidence from a natural experiment. Kyklos, 65(4), 425–441.Google Scholar
  6. Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2016). Mindful economics: The production, consumption, and value of beliefs. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(3), 141–164.Google Scholar
  7. Benistant, J., & Villeval, M. C. (2019). Unethical behavior and group identity in contests. Journal of Economic Psychology, 72, 128–155.Google Scholar
  8. Bertrand, M. (2011). Chapter 17—New perspectives on gender. In D. Card & O. Ashenfelter (Eds.), Handbook of Labor Economics (Vol. 4b, pp. 1545–1592). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  9. Betz, M., O’Connell, L., & Shepard, J. M. (1989). Gender differences in proclivity for unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(5), 321–324.Google Scholar
  10. Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2017). The gender wage gap: Extent, trends, and explanations. Journal of Economic Literature, 55(3), 789–865.Google Scholar
  11. Bock, O., Baetge, I., & Nicklisch, A. (2014). hroot: Hamburg registration and organization online tool. European Economic Review, 71, 117–120.Google Scholar
  12. Bolton, G. E., & Ockenfels, A. (2000). ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. American Economic Review, 90(1), 166–193.Google Scholar
  13. Bordalo, P., Coffman, K., Gennaioli, N., & Shleifer, A. (2019). Beliefs about gender. American Economic Review, 109(3), 739–773.Google Scholar
  14. Borghans, L., Heckman, J. J., Golsteyn, B. H. H., & Meijers, H. (2009). Gender differences in risk aversion and ambiguity aversion. Journal of the European Economic Association, 7(2–3), 649–658.Google Scholar
  15. Brandts, J., & Charness, G. (2011). The strategy versus the direct-response method: A first survey of experimental comparisons. Experimental Economics, 14(3), 375–398.Google Scholar
  16. Brink, W. D., Eaton, T. V., Grenier, J. H., & Reffett, A. (2019). Deterring unethical behavior in online labor markets. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(1), 71–88.Google Scholar
  17. Carpenter, J., Matthews, P. H., & Schirm, J. (2010). Tournaments and office politics: Evidence from a real effort experiment. American Economic Review, 100(1), 504–17.Google Scholar
  18. Charness, G., & Levine, D. I. (2010). When is employee retaliation acceptable at work? Evidence from quasi-experiments. Industrial Relations, 49(4), 499–523.Google Scholar
  19. Charness, G., Masclet, D., & Villeval, M. C. (2013). The dark side of competition for status. Management Science, 60(1), 38–55.Google Scholar
  20. Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(3), 817–869.Google Scholar
  21. Chowdhury, S. M., & Gürtler, O. (2015). Sabotage in contests: A survey. Public Choice, 164, 135–155.Google Scholar
  22. Conrads, J., Irlenbusch, B., Rilke, R. M., Schielke, C., & Walkowitz, G. (2014). Honesty in tournaments. Economics Letters, 123(1), 90–93.Google Scholar
  23. Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 448–474.Google Scholar
  24. Dato, S., & Nieken, P. (2014). Gender differences in competition and sabotage. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 100, 64–80.Google Scholar
  25. Davis, S. F., Grover, C. A., Becker, A. H., & McGregor, L. N. (1992). Academic dishonesty: Prevalence, determinants, techniques, and punishments. Teaching of Psychology, 19, 16–20.Google Scholar
  26. del Corral, J., Prieto-Rodriguez, J., & Simmons, R. (2010). The effect of incentives on sabotage: The case of spanish football. Journal of Sports Economics, 11(3), 243–260.Google Scholar
  27. Deutscher, C., Frick, B., Gürtler, O., & Prinz, J. (2013). Sabotage in tournaments with heterogeneous contestants: Empirical evidence from the soccer pitch. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 115(4), 1138–1157.Google Scholar
  28. Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2011). Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9(3), 522–550.Google Scholar
  29. Dreber, A., & Johannesson, M. (2008). Gender differences in deception. Economics Letters, 99, 197–199.Google Scholar
  30. Eriksson, T., Teyssier, S., & Villeval, M.-C. (2009). Self-selection and the efficiency of tournaments. Economic Inquiry, 47(3), 530–548.Google Scholar
  31. Erkal, N., Gangadharan, L., & Nikiforakis, N. (2011). Relative earnings and giving in a real-effort experiment. American Economic Review, 101(7), 3330–3348.Google Scholar
  32. Falk, A., Fehr, E., & Huffman, D. B. (2008). The power and limits of tournament incentives. Working paper.Google Scholar
  33. Fang, F., Bennett, J. W., & Casadevall, A. (2013). Males are overrepresented among life sicence researchers committing scientific misconduct. mBio, 4, 1–3.Google Scholar
  34. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817–868.Google Scholar
  35. Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10, 171–178.Google Scholar
  36. Fischbacher, U., & Föllmi-Heusi, F. (2013). Lies in disguise—An experimental study on cheating. Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(3), 525–547.Google Scholar
  37. Fischbacher, U., Gächter, S., & Fehr, E. (2001). Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Economics Letters, 71(3), 397–404.Google Scholar
  38. Flory, J. A., Leibbrandt, A., & List, J. A. (2015). Do competitive workplaces deter female workers? A large-scale natural field experiment on job entry decisions. The Review of Economic Studies, 82(1), 122–155.Google Scholar
  39. Flory, J. A., Leibbrandt, A., & List, J. A. (2016). The effects of wage contracts on workplace misbehaviors: Evidence from a call center natural field experiment. Working paper.Google Scholar
  40. Fu, Q., Ke, C., & Tan, F. (2015). Success breeds succes or pride goes before a fall? Teams and individuals in multi-contest tournaments. Games and Economic Behavior, 94, 57–79.Google Scholar
  41. Garicano, L., & Palacios-Huerta, I. (2006). Sabotage in tournaments: Making the beautiful game a bit less beautiful. CEPR discussion paper no. 5231.Google Scholar
  42. Gneezy, U., Niederle, M., & Rustichini, A. (2003). Performance in competitive environments: Gender differences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3), 1049–1074.Google Scholar
  43. Gürtler, O., Münster, J., & Nieken, P. (2013). Information policy in tournaments with sabotage. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 115(3), 932–966.Google Scholar
  44. Harbring, C., & Irlenbusch, B. (2005). Incentives in tournaments with endogenous prize selection. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics JITE, 161(4), 636–663.Google Scholar
  45. Harbring, C., & Irlenbusch, B. (2008). How many winners are good to have? On tournaments with sabotage. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 65(3), 682–702.Google Scholar
  46. Harbring, C., & Irlenbusch, B. (2011). Sabotage in tournaments: Evidence from a laboratory experiment. Management Science, 57(4), 611–627.Google Scholar
  47. Hermann, B., & Orzen, H. (2008). The appearance of homo rivalis: Social preferences and the nature of rent seeking. CeDEx discussion paper no. 2008–10.Google Scholar
  48. Kuhnen, C. M., & Tymula, A. (2012). Feedback, self-esteem and performance in organizations. Management Science, 58(1), 94–113.Google Scholar
  49. Leibbrandt, A., Wang, L. C., & Foo, C. (2017). Gender quotas, competition, and peer review: Experimental evidence on the backlash against women. Management Science, 64, 3501–3516.Google Scholar
  50. Lundeberg, M. A., Fox, P. W., & Punćcohaŕ, J. (1994). Highly confident but wrong: Gender differences and similarities in confidence judgments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 114.Google Scholar
  51. Moffat, P. G. (2016). Experimetrics. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  52. Muehlheusser, G., Roider, A., & Wallmeier, N. (2015). Gender differences in honesty: Groups versus individuals. Economics Letters, 128, 25–29.Google Scholar
  53. Niederle, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2007). Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1067–1101.Google Scholar
  54. Papadopoulos, F. C., Skalkidis, I., Parkkari, J., & Petridou, E. (2006). Doping use among tertiary education students in six developed countries. European Journal of Epidemiology, 21, 307–313.Google Scholar
  55. Preston, I., & Szymanski, S. (2003). Cheating in contests. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 19(4), 612–624.Google Scholar
  56. Price, C. R. (2012). Gender, competition, and managerial decisions. Management Science, 58(1), 114–122.Google Scholar
  57. Rigdon, M. L., & D’Esterre, A. P. (2015). The effects of competition on the nature of cheating behavior. Southern Economic Journal, 81(4), 1012–1024.Google Scholar
  58. Selten, R. (1967). Die strategiemethode zur erforschung des eingeschränkt rationalen verhaltens im rahmen eines oligopolexperiments. In H. Sauermann (Ed.), Beiträge zur experimentellen Wirtschaftsforschung (pp. 136–168). Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
  59. Sheremeta, R. M. (2010). Experimental comparison of multi-stage and one-stage contests. Games and Economic Behavior, 68(2), 731–747.Google Scholar
  60. Vandegrift, D., & Yavas, A. (2010). An experimental test of sabotage in tournaments. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics JITE, 166(2), 259–285.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Science Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of BonnBonnGermany
  2. 2.Chair of Human Resource Management, Institute of ManagementKarlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations