TY - RPRT A1 - Barron, Kai A1 - Ditlmann, Ruth K. A1 - Gehrig, Stefan A1 - Schweighofer-Kodritsch, Sebastian T1 - Explicit and Implicit Belief-Based Gender Discrimination: A Hiring Experiment N2 - This paper studies a key element of discrimination, namely when stereotypes translate into discriminatory actions. Using a hiring experiment, we rule out taste-based discrimination by design and test for the presence of two types of belief-based gender discrimination. We document evidence of explicit discriminators—individuals who are willing to discriminate even when their hiring choices are highly revealing of their gender-biased beliefs. Crucially, we also identify implicit discriminators—individuals who do not discriminate against women when taking a discriminatory action is highly revealing of their biased beliefs, but do discriminate against women when their biased motive is obscured. Our analysis highlights the central role played by features of the choice environment in determining whether and how discrimination will manifest. We conclude by discussing the implications for policy design. T3 - Berlin School of Economics Discussion Papers - 35 Y1 - 2024 UR - https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-53610 UR - https://berlinschoolofeconomics.de/insights/discussion-papers U6 - https://doi.org/10.48462/opus4-5361 ET - No. 35 ER - TY - RPRT A1 - Schweighofer-Kodritsch, Sebastian A1 - Barron, Kai A1 - Ditlmann, Ruth K. A1 - Gehrig, Stefan T1 - Explicit and Implicit Belief-Based Gender Discrimination: A Hiring Experiment T2 - Berlin School of Economics Discussion Papers N2 - This paper studies a key element of discrimination, namely when stereotypes translate into discriminatory actions. Using a hiring experiment, we rule out taste-based discrimination by design and test for the presence of two types of belief-based gender discrimination. We document evidence of explicit discriminators—individuals who are willing to discriminate even when their hiring choices are highly revealing of their gender-biased beliefs. Crucially, we also identify implicit discriminators—individuals who do not discriminate against women when taking a discriminatory action is highly revealing of their biased beliefs, but do discriminate against women when their biased motive is obscured. Our analysis highlights the central role played by features of the choice environment in determining whether and how discrimination will manifest. We conclude by discussing the implications for policy design. T3 - Berlin School of Economics Discussion Papers - 35 Y1 - 2024 UR - https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-53592 UR - https://berlinschoolofeconomics.de/insights/discussion-papers UR - https://doi.org/10.48462/opus4-5361 U6 - https://doi.org/10.48462/opus4-5359 N1 - This document has been replaced due to an error on the cover page. The new document is available at the following link: https://doi.org/10.48462/opus4-5361 ET - No. 35 ER - TY - RPRT A1 - Schweighofer-Kodritsch, Sebastian T1 - Bounded Rationality, Beliefs, and Behavior T2 - Berlin School of Economics Discussion Papers N2 - This chapter presents a microeconomic, behavioral perspective on bounded rationality and beliefs. It begins with an account of how research on belief biases, in particular via probabilistic belief elicitation, has become mainstream in economics only relatively recently and late, even in behavioral economics (aka “psychology and economics”). The chapter then offers a review of the decision-theoretic foundations of modeling and eliciting (subjective) beliefs as probabilities, as well as selected—both classic and recent—evidence on humans’ bounded rationality from related research in psychology and economics. In doing so, it connects the historical debates within decision theory, on the one hand, and within psychology, on the other, concerning the normative status of expected utility and Bayesianism, as well as its methodological implications. A conclusion draws lessons for the practice of belief elicitation and future research. T3 - Berlin School of Economics Discussion Papers - 37 Y1 - 2024 UR - https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-53637 UR - https://berlinschoolofeconomics.de/insights/discussion-papers U6 - https://doi.org/10.48462/opus4-5363 ET - No. 37 ER - TY - RPRT A1 - Jessen, Jonas A1 - Schweighofer-Kodritsch, Sebastian A1 - Weinhardt, Felix A1 - Berkes, Jan T1 - Separate Housework Spheres T2 - Berlin School of Economics Discussion Papers N2 - Using novel time-use data from Germany before and after reunification, we document two facts: First, spouses who both work full-time exhibit similar housework patterns whether they do so voluntarily or due to a full-time mandate, as in the GDR. Second, men’s amount of housework is independent of their spouse’s labour supply. We theoretically explain this pattern by the presence of two household goods and socially learned gender-specific comparative advantage in their home production. We label this gender specialisation as separate housework spheres. Empirical evidence strongly confirms separate housework spheres in the GDR, West Germany, subsequent years post-reunification, and in international time-use data across 17 countries since the 1970s. We consider several implications, such as those for child penalties, where separate housework spheres provide a novel explanation for why it is the mothers whose labour market outcomes strongly deteriorate upon the arrival of children. T3 - Berlin School of Economics Discussion Papers - 43 Y1 - 2024 UR - https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-55494 UR - https://berlinschoolofeconomics.de/insights/discussion-papers U6 - https://doi.org/10.48462/opus4-5549 ET - No. 43 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Barron, Kai A1 - Ditlmann, Ruth K. A1 - Gehrig, Stefan A1 - Schweighofer-Kodritsch, Sebastian T1 - Explicit and Implicit Belief-Based Gender Discrimination: A Hiring Experiment JF - Management Science N2 - This paper studies a key element of discrimination, namely, when stereotypes translate into discriminatory actions. Using a hiring experiment, we rule out taste-based discrimination by design and test for the presence of two types of belief-based gender discrimination. We document evidence of explicit discriminators—individuals who are willing to discriminate even when their hiring choices are highly revealing of their gender-biased beliefs. Crucially, we also identify implicit discriminators—individuals who do not discriminate against women when taking a discriminatory action is highly revealing of their biased beliefs, but do discriminate against women when their biased motive is obscured. Our analysis highlights the central role played by features of the choice environment in determining whether and how discrimination will manifest. We conclude by discussing the implications for policy design. KW - discrimination, hiring decisions, gender, beliefs, experiment, aversive sexism Y1 - 2024 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.01229 SN - 0025-1909 (print) ER -