Essays on Gender Differences in Job Search Beliefs and Behavior

Abstract

Gender Differences in Sorting on the Job Market: The Role of Application Costs Research shows that, holding qualifications equal, women are less willing than men to apply for certain high-paying jobs. Through a stylized labor market experiment, I investigate whether the "gender application gap" for high-paying jobs is affected by the presence or magnitude of application costs. I randomly vary the cost of applying for such a job, with subjects either facing no marginal cost, paying a fee, or writing a cover letter. Men are significantly more likely than equally qualified women to apply for a job only when the marginal cost of applying is zero. Introducing either type of application cost, but especially a fee, shrinks the gender application gap. This result comes from gender differences in self-selection behavior: women prefer not to apply when unskilled regardless of costs, whereas unskilled men only drop out of the applicant pool when a tangible cost is introduced. Women appear to face a higher cost than men from applying for a job they might perform poorly at, especially if the job is in a stereotypically "male-typed" domain. Subjective Self-Promotion and Gender Bias in Recruitment Previous work finds that women are more "modest" on average than equally skilled men when subjectively describing their abilities. If recruiters treat self-promotion by men and women as equally informative, they may become inefficiently biased towards male applicants. I randomly vary whether recruiters in a hiring experiment select from applicants who submitted only a resume, or submitted a resume and a cover letter (a type of subjective self-promotion). A cover letter requirement significantly reduces women's share of hires, even as it increases women's share of total applications. This hiring penalty against women cannot be explained by differences in qualifications or skills between men and women who choose to write cover letters. In fact, while employers see productivity gains from requiring a cover letter, such gains would be larger if cover letters did not bias recruiters towards male applicants. Textual analysis reveals that women’s cover letters contain half as much “boasting” language as men’s letters, which could help explain why cover letters impose a penalty on women's chances of getting hired. Anticipated Returns to "Clearing the Bar'': Gender Differences in Job Search Beliefs Conventional wisdom states that women are less willing than men to apply for a job for which they feel only partly qualified. Is this due to gender differences in anticipated returns to meeting or exceeding the desired level of qualification for a job? In a series of studies, I investigate whether men and women rate more and less qualified candidates’ chances of being hired differently. In the lab, I elicit beliefs about callback and offer likelihood by having subjects "bet" on the outcomes of other applicants' job searches. In a stylized online labor market experiment, I observe subjects' job application decisions and elicit beliefs regarding how qualified they will appear to a recruiter. Across studies, I find that women anticipate the same or greater returns than men to moving from "not at all" to "somewhat" qualified for a position, but the same or lower returns to moving from "somewhat" to fully or "highly" qualified. Controlling for gender differences in willingness to rate one's own or others' resumes as qualified does not change the pattern of results. Consistent with these findings, women in my experiment do not differ from men in how likely they are to apply if they fulfill some, but not all, of the listed qualifications in a job posting.