Despite how pervasive this idea has become, it has not found unequivocal support in labor market data ( 20). Adding to the more traditional explanations for gender differences in labor market outcomes, this finding contributes a more direct behavioral explanation to the puzzle of why women are scarce in top-ranking professional positions: women simply do not select into competitive environments as much as men do because women are lacking in competitive behavioral traits. Numerous subsequent studies have replicated this finding, in the laboratory and in the field, and have explored possible ways to encourage women to choose tournament, such as affirmative action or varying the characteristics of the task or of the competition ( 10, 14– 17). Controlling for confidence and risk aversion does not explain away the gender gap in choosing tournament. Despite the lack of a gender difference in performance, when offered the choice to be paid on a tournament payment scheme or a noncompetitive piece-rate payment scheme, men usually choose tournament significantly more often than women.

In the standard experimental design on selection into competitive environments, men and women are given a series of computational tasks under different payment conditions and then asked to choose the preferred payment method for a subsequent task ( 9). The goal of this paper is to contribute new behavioral evidence to the study of the different modalities of women’s competition.Įconomists have long observed that sex differences in behavior exist and have consistently documented a gender gap in the desire to compete ( 9– 13). Recently, important studies have laid the foundation for understanding the difference in competitive strategies pursued by the sexes and, in particular, found that females reserve their most intense competitive behaviors for the benefit of offspring ( 3, 5, 8). If competitive traits derive from selection pressures, then men and women should each have evolved competitive traits. From an evolutionary perspective, variance in female reproductive outcomes implies that men and women have been subject to similarly intense selection pressures ( 1, 8). Despite Darwin’s recognition of the importance of intrasexual competition, male–male and female–female competition for resources and sexual reproduction ( 6), most subsequent work has focused on the mechanisms and consequences of male competition. Following pioneering works by Hrdy and Clutton-Brock, significant advances in evolutionary biology, psychology, and anthropology have produced an important body of knowledge on the occurrence and evolutionary significance of female competition ( 1– 5).

The gender gap game instructions