CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 507

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

Babcock, Linda, Recalde, Maria P., Vesterlund, Lise, Weingart, Laurie·2017·American Economic Review
DOI 10.1257/aer.20141734
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1257/aer.20141734

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. 10.1080/09585192.2011.561961 · DOI
  2. 10.1162/003355301556419 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1179/030801811X13013181961473 · DOI
  4. 10.1177/017084069801900504 · DOI
  5. 10.1257/app.2.3.228 · DOI
  6. 10.1177/001979390105500101 · DOI
  7. 10.1257/aer.91.4.814 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1016/0047-2727(84)90041-0 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.jebo.2012.09.024 · DOI
  10. 10.1175/1520-0493(1950)078<0001:VOFEIT>2.0.CO;2 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1177/0001839215611447 · DOI
  12. 10.1111/j.1467-937X.2008.00498.x · DOI
  13. 10.1016/S0167-2681(99)00078-5 · DOI
  14. 10.1257/jel.47.2.448 · DOI · Paper page
  15. De Pater Irene E, 2010, Gender, Work, and Organization, 17, 433, 10.1111/j.1468-0432.2009.00477.x · DOI
  16. 10.1177/0022002785029004003 · DOI
  17. 10.1007/BF01245571 · DOI
  18. 10.1037/0022-3514.40.2.384 · DOI
  19. 10.1111/1468-0297.00311 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1007/s10683-006-9159-4 · DOI
  21. 10.1177/1043463195007002006 · DOI
  22. 10.1162/00335530360698496 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1016/j.geb.2017.01.002 · DOI
  24. 10.1257/jep.20.4.133 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1257/aer.90.4.715 · DOI
  26. 10.1016/j.jebo.2012.09.008 · DOI
  27. 10.1016/j.jebo.2014.02.011 · DOI
  28. 10.1016/j.econlet.2014.12.027 · DOI
  29. 10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.431 · DOI
  30. 10.1006/game.1998.0685 · DOI
  31. 10.1093/restud/rdt006 · DOI
  32. 10.1515/2156-6674.1006 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.1038/246015a0 · DOI · Paper page
  34. 10.1111/j.1573-7861.2012.01319.x · DOI · Paper page
  35. 10.1017/S1049096513000073 · DOI
  36. 10.2307/2393335 · DOI
  37. 10.2307/256769 · DOI
  38. 10.1016/j.jet.2011.10.014 · DOI
  39. 10.2307/1924218 · DOI
  40. 10.1353/jhe.2007.0027 · DOI
  41. 10.1037/0033-295X.86.6.574 · DOI
  42. 10.2307/3033935 · DOI
  43. 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1961.tb00388.x · DOI
  44. Woolley Anita, 2011, Harvard Business Review, 89, 32

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
DOI
10.1257/aer.20141734
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