The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Gender Differences in Accepting and Receiving Requests for Tasks with Low Promotability
Abstract
Gender differences in task allocations may sustain vertical gender segregation in labor markets. We examine the allocation of a task that everyone prefers be completed by someone else (writing a report, serving on a committee, etc.) and find evidence that women, more than men, volunteer, are asked to volunteer, and accept requests to volunteer for such tasks. Beliefs that women, more than men, say yes to tasks with low promotability appear as an important driver of these differences. If women hold tasks that are less promotable than those held by men, then women will progress more slowly in organizations. (JEL I23, J16, J44, J71, M12, M51)
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Plenty of work has highlighted that underrepresented employees are often assigned to nonpromotable tasks (e.g., Babcock et al. 2017Babcock et al. , 2022)).”
From Included but undermined: How representation goals backfire (2025) · cites this paper as Babcock et al. 2017
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Do Women Shy Away From Competition? Do Men Compete Too Much?
Niederle, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2007) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/qjec.122.3.1067 · Cited by 3,186
Self-citationDo People Mean What They Say? Implications for Subjective Survey Data
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2001) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.91.2.67 · Cited by 1,391
Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability
BRIER, G. W. (1950) · Monthly Weather Review · doi:10.1175/1520-0493(1950)078%3c0001:vofeit%3e2.0.co;2 · cited 2×
“While the quadratic scoring rule (Brier, 1950) is an incentive compatible elicitation for risk neutral individuals, risk averse individuals have an incentive to report less dispersed beliefs.”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 44
- 10.1080/09585192.2011.561961 · DOI
- 10.1162/003355301556419 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1179/030801811X13013181961473 · DOI
- 10.1177/017084069801900504 · DOI
- 10.1257/app.2.3.228 · DOI
- 10.1177/001979390105500101 · DOI
- 10.1257/aer.91.4.814 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/0047-2727(84)90041-0 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jebo.2012.09.024 · DOI
- 10.1175/1520-0493(1950)078<0001:VOFEIT>2.0.CO;2 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/0001839215611447 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1467-937X.2008.00498.x · DOI
- 10.1016/S0167-2681(99)00078-5 · DOI
- 10.1257/jel.47.2.448 · DOI · Paper page
- De Pater Irene E, 2010, Gender, Work, and Organization, 17, 433, 10.1111/j.1468-0432.2009.00477.x · DOI
- 10.1177/0022002785029004003 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF01245571 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.40.2.384 · DOI
- 10.1111/1468-0297.00311 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s10683-006-9159-4 · DOI
- 10.1177/1043463195007002006 · DOI
- 10.1162/00335530360698496 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.geb.2017.01.002 · DOI
- 10.1257/jep.20.4.133 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1257/aer.90.4.715 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jebo.2012.09.008 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jebo.2014.02.011 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.econlet.2014.12.027 · DOI
- 10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.431 · DOI
- 10.1006/game.1998.0685 · DOI
- 10.1093/restud/rdt006 · DOI
- 10.1515/2156-6674.1006 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/246015a0 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1573-7861.2012.01319.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1017/S1049096513000073 · DOI
- 10.2307/2393335 · DOI
- 10.2307/256769 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jet.2011.10.014 · DOI
- 10.2307/1924218 · DOI
- 10.1353/jhe.2007.0027 · DOI
- 10.1037/0033-295X.86.6.574 · DOI
- 10.2307/3033935 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1961.tb00388.x · DOI
- Woolley Anita, 2011, Harvard Business Review, 89, 32
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Eagly, A. H., Nater, C., Miller, D. I., Kaufmann, M., & Sczesny, S. (2020) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/amp0000494 · Cited by 1,136
AlShebli, B., Makovi, K., & Rahwan, T. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-20617-y · Cited by 23
RetractedThe gender gap in scholarly self-promotion on social media
Peng, H., Teplitskiy, M., Romero, D. M., & Horvát, E.-Á. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-60590-y · Cited by 17
Included but undermined: How representation goals backfire
Osborne, M. R., Roberson, J. W., & Tost, L. (2025) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/cse5r_v2
Metadata
- Authors
- Babcock, L., Recalde, M. P., Vesterlund, L., & Weingart, L.
- Affiliations
- Heinz College and Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, BP 319, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (e-mail: )
- International Food Policy Research Institute, Markets, Trade, and Institutions Division, 2033 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006 (e-mail: )
- Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh, 4928 WW Posvar Hall, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, and NBER (e-mail: )
- Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (e-mail: )
- Venue
- American Economic Review
- Publisher
- American Economic Association
- Published
- 2017-03-01
- Volume
- 107
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 714-747
- ISSN
- 0002-8282
- Cited by
- 507
- References
- 3
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Gender Differences in Accepting and Receiving Requests for Tasks with Low Promotability. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1257/aer.20141734
- The paper
- Babcock, L., Recalde, M. P., Vesterlund, L., & Weingart, L. (2017). Gender Differences in Accepting and Receiving Requests for Tasks with Low Promotability. American Economic Review. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20141734
