Working papers

• Effects of written self-promotions on gender bias and decision quality (with Marina Schröder)[pdf]
  Abstract

  Written self-promotion is crucial in numerous decision-making scenarios, including job applications, securing funds for start-ups, or academic grant proposals. In two experiments, we study the effects of self-promotions written by applicants on decision-makers, focusing on decision quality and gender bias. show that providing such self-promotions slightly improves decision quality. Concerning gender bias, we find that self-promotions do not induce a gender bias that harms women. Moreover, the provision of selfpromotions can even eliminate pre-existing gender bias when no other performance signals are available.
• Piece-rate incentives and idea generation - An experimental analysis (with Katharina Laske and Marina Schröder) Link to the word illustration task (WIT)[pdf](under review)
  Abstract

  Understanding how organizational design affects idea generation is key to fostering innovation. In the context of idea generation, incentives may impact how hard ideators work (effort) and the types of ideas generated. We introduce two versions of a novel experimental task to quantify both of these effects. We show that piece-rate (PR) incentives increase the number of innovative ideas generated. Incentives lead to an increase in effort provision and a shift toward generating ideas that require less time in the realization. If anything, aligning incentives more closely to the desirable outcomes mitigates the effect of PR incentives on idea generation.
• A single voice is not enough: Evidence on female representation on expert panels in startup pitching contests (with Richard Bläse)
  Abstract

  This study explores the dynamics of gender bias in expert panels using data from university-based startup-pitching contexts. Experts on these panels are primarily professional investors and assess a series of startups to determine contest winners. Our results indicate evidence for peer effects among such panels. First, we find that in-group bias with respect to gender in evaluations depends on the share of in-group experts on the panel. Second, observing dynamics in evaluations, we can show that evaluations change, once experts are exposed to the opinions of their fellow panelists. We document gender differences in both effects, highlighting the relevance of the design of such evaluation processes for gender biases.

Work in progress

• It’s a match! Team composition and performance in innovation-related tasks (with Joshua Graff-Zivin)[draft in preparation]
  Abstract

  We provide causal evidence of the effect of social connections on team formation preferences and team performance in an innovation-related task. Using a novel experimental design, we induce social connection in a large-scale online study via a short 2 minute video conversation. We can show that workers prefer to form a team with a lower-skilled worker they have communicated with prior to the team task than with higher-skilled workers they have not spoken to. This affects skill composition and social closeness within teams formed based on workers’ preferences. By examining team performance, we show that while social interaction can improve performance, preference-based matching offsets better outcomes. Our findings imply that self-formed teams may be configured sub-optimally as they can be biased by social connections.
• Group decisions (with Alex Chan and Melisa Kurtis)[draft in preparation]
  Abstract

  Group decision-making is crucial in economic decisions, such as in corporate boards, research consortia, and hiring committees. We experimentally investigate the effects of diversity in priors and input aggregation mechanism on team performance in an estimation task. Groups in our experiment share the common objective to accurately estimate the ”type” of an imperfectly observed candidate. First, we exogenously vary group member priors and group (prior) diversity. We find that fully diverse groups make more accurate estimations than partially diverse or homogenous groups. Second, we vary the format of decision-making. The findings reveal that performance and benefits of diversity both depend on the group decision-making format. Group deliberation via online chat reduces accuracy. Initial speakers bias the group’s estimation towards their own priors, but first speakers with minority views (of priors) lead to more accurate group estimations.
• The effect of advice on self-evaluation (with Marina Schröder)[draft in preparation]
  Abstract

  We experimentally examine how different advice formats affect self-evaluations. We find that advice given based on noisy performance signals increases self-evaluations and success of highperformers while reducing success for low-performers. Both genders respond similarly to proactive advice, given before self-evaluation. However, reactive advice—given after a preliminary self-evaluation— has stronger effects on women. Consequently, high-performing women benefit from advice more than men, whereas low-performing women are disadvantaged. Effects differ due to asymmetric reactions to advice by men. Thus, while reactive advice promotes high-performing women when performance signals are accurate, it disproportionately harms them when misclassified.
• The effect of affirmative action on self-promotion (with Marina Schröder)[piloting]
  Abstract

  Prior literature has shown that affirmative action can affect effort choices, investments tournament entries or unethical behavior towards peers. In an experimental study, we seek to investigate effects of affirmative action on self-promotion. We systematically vary the disadvantage potentially affirmed individuals are facing, and whether affirmative action is in place or not. Aiming to understand whether affirmative action may lead to underinvestment in support, I assess impacts on willingness to pay for AI assistance in revising self-promotions. With these results, I aim to shed light on potential side effects of affirmative action for affirmed individuals and to current debates on the effectiveness of such policies.

WIT is an ideation task that comes with an objective performance measure and other great advantages (check out Laske, Römer and Schröder (2024) for details). Want to use WIT? Check out the easy-to-implement version I share on Github.

My personal top three ideas generated in experiments using this task

1. ‘Dragon’

   

2. ‘Drums’

   

3. ‘Parrot’

   

2024

GfeW (Cologne)

2023

COPE (Amsterdam), Maastricht University Center of Neuroeconomics, EEA (Barcelona), Verein für Socialpolitik (Regensburg), RISE Workshop (Munich)

2022

LESSAC Seminar (Dijon), ASFEE (Lyon), Brown Bag Seminar of the Organizational Economics Chair at LMU (Munich), ESA Europe (Bologna), Conference on Field Experiments in Strategy (London), 2nd Berlin Workshop on Empirical Public Economics: Gender Economics (Berlin)

2021

ESA Global Online Around-the-Clock Meeting, GfeW (Magdeburg)