Home Lab versus Online Experiments: Gender Differences
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Lab versus Online Experiments: Gender Differences

  • Beatrice Braut ORCID logo EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: September 8, 2023
The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy
From the journal The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy Volume 23 Issue 4

Abstract

Comparing the behaviour of subjects randomly allocated to perform tasks and tests online or in the lab, I find that the setting influences males’ and females’ behaviour differently. Males are more selfish in the online setting than in the lab, while females are more risk-averse when they answer online compared to the lab. Interestingly, performance in math is influenced by the setting for females: online they perform better. The gender gap in numeracy closes online, while it is present in the lab, where males solve more math problems. This work provides preliminary evidence on how gender differences and gaps can be altered by the setting. As online settings have become more and more common practice in running experiments and have started to be used also in education, it is important to understand the consequences that this shift implies also relative to gender differences and gaps.

Keywords: online; gender; experiment; education; preferences
Corresponding author: Beatrice Braut, Department of Economics, University of Genoa, Via Vivaldi, 5 – 16126 Genova, Italy; and Department of Economics, Social Studies, Applied Mathematics and Statistics, University of Turin, Corso Unione Sovietica, 218 Bis – 10134 Torino, Italy, E-mail: .

References

Andreoni, J., and C. Sprenger. 2012. “Estimating Time Preferences from Convex Budgets.” The American Economic Review 102 (7): 3333–56. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.7.3333.Search in Google Scholar

Andreoni, J., and L. Vesterlund. 2001. “Which Is the Fair Sex? Gender Differences in Altruism.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 116 (1): 293–312. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355301556419.Search in Google Scholar

Andreoni, J., M. A. Kuhn, and C. Sprenger. 2015. “Measuring Time Preferences: A Comparison of Experimental Methods.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 116: 451–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2015.05.018.Search in Google Scholar

Borgonovi, F. 2022. “Is the Literacy Achievement of Teenage Boys Poorer Than that of Teenage Girls, or Do Estimates of Gender Gaps Depend on the Test? A Comparison of PISA and PIAAC.” Journal of Educational Psychology 114 (2): 239. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000659.Search in Google Scholar

Brañas-Garza, P., D. Jorrat, A. M. Espín, and A. Sánchez. 2023. “Paid and Hypothetical Time Preferences Are the Same: Lab, Field and Online Evidence.” Experimental Economics 26: 412–34, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-022-09776-5.Search in Google Scholar

Buso, I. M., D. Di Cagno, L. Ferrari, V. Larocca, L. Lor`e, F. Marazzi, L. Panaccione, and L. Spadoni. 2021. “Lab-like Findings from Online Experiments.” Journal of the Economic Science Association 7 (2): 184–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40881-021-00114-8.Search in Google Scholar

Charness, G., and U. Gneezy. 2012. “Strong Evidence for Gender Differences in Risk Taking.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 83 (1): 50–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.06.007.Search in Google Scholar

Croson, R., and U. Gneezy. 2009. “Gender Differences in Preferences.” Journal of Economic Literature 47 (2): 448–74. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.47.2.448.Search in Google Scholar

d’Adda, G., M. Dufwenberg, F. Passarelli, and G. Tabellini. 2020. “Social Norms with Private Values: Theory and Experiments.” Games and Economic Behavior 124: 288–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2020.08.012.Search in Google Scholar

Frederick, S. 2005. “Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 19 (4): 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732.Search in Google Scholar

Fryer, R. G.Jr, and S. D. Levitt. 2010. “An Empirical Analysis of the Gender Gap in Mathematics.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 2 (2): 210–40. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.2.2.210.Search in Google Scholar

Guiso, L., F. Monte, P. Sapienza, and L. Zingales. 2008. “Culture, Gender, and Math.” Science 320 (5880): 1164–5. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1154094.Search in Google Scholar

Holt, C. A., and S. K. Laury. 2002. “Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects.” The American Economic Review 92 (5): 1644–55. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282802762024700.Search in Google Scholar

Horn, D., H. J. Kiss, and T. Lénárd. 2022. “Gender Differences in Preferences of Adolescents: Evidence from a Large-Scale Classroom Experiment.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 194: 478–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2021.12.015.Search in Google Scholar

Pin, P., and T. Rotesi. 2023. “App–based Experiments.” Available at SSRN 3865723.10.1016/j.joep.2023.102666Search in Google Scholar

Prissé, B., and D. Jorrat. 2022. “Lab vs Online Experiments: No Differences.” Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 100: 101910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2022.101910.Search in Google Scholar
Received: 2022-12-16
Accepted: 2023-08-29
Published Online: 2023-09-08

© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Strategic Analysis of Petty Corruption with an Entrepreneur and Multiple Bureaucrats
  4. Environmental Policy in Vertical Markets with Downstream Pollution: Taxes Versus Standards
  5. The Impact of the CARES Stimulus Payments on COVID-19 Transmission and Mortality
  6. Reverses in Gender Salary Gaps Among STEM Faculty: Evidence from Mean and Quantile Decompositions
  7. Downstream Profit Effects of Horizontal Mergers: Horn & Wolinsky and von Ungern-Sternberg Revisited
  8. The Moderating Role of Decisiveness in the Attraction Effect
  9. Pension Reform and Improved Employment Protection: Effects on Older Men’s Employment Outcomes
  10. Relational Voluntary Environmental Agreements with Unverifiable Emissions
  11. Letters
  12. Labor Demand Responses to Changing Gas Prices
  13. Early Childhood Education Attendance and Students’ Later Outcomes in Europe
  14. The Long-Term Effects of Unilateral Divorce Laws on the Noncognitive Skill of Conscientiousness
  15. Lab versus Online Experiments: Gender Differences
  16. Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis and HIV Incidence
  17. Variants of Gender Bias and Sexual-Orientation Discrimination in Career Development
https://doi.org/10.1515/bejeap-2022-0451
Keywords for this article
online; gender; experiment; education; preferences

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Strategic Analysis of Petty Corruption with an Entrepreneur and Multiple Bureaucrats
  4. Environmental Policy in Vertical Markets with Downstream Pollution: Taxes Versus Standards
  5. The Impact of the CARES Stimulus Payments on COVID-19 Transmission and Mortality
  6. Reverses in Gender Salary Gaps Among STEM Faculty: Evidence from Mean and Quantile Decompositions
  7. Downstream Profit Effects of Horizontal Mergers: Horn & Wolinsky and von Ungern-Sternberg Revisited
  8. The Moderating Role of Decisiveness in the Attraction Effect
  9. Pension Reform and Improved Employment Protection: Effects on Older Men’s Employment Outcomes
  10. Relational Voluntary Environmental Agreements with Unverifiable Emissions
  11. Letters
  12. Labor Demand Responses to Changing Gas Prices
  13. Early Childhood Education Attendance and Students’ Later Outcomes in Europe
  14. The Long-Term Effects of Unilateral Divorce Laws on the Noncognitive Skill of Conscientiousness
  15. Lab versus Online Experiments: Gender Differences
  16. Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis and HIV Incidence
  17. Variants of Gender Bias and Sexual-Orientation Discrimination in Career Development
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 16.11.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/bejeap-2022-0451/html
Scroll to top button