Motivated by evidence that individuals are systematically misinformed about the prevalence of negotiations and the expected efficacy of negotiations, we conducted a randomized information experiment with the Business major bachelor’s graduating cohorts of 2018 and 2019 of Boston University. Specifically, a subset of individuals at the end of their junior year – prior to the job search process – were provided with information about the relative difference in negotiation rates by gender along with the efficacy rate of negotiation reported by past graduates. Comparing pre- and post- information beliefs about negotiation likelihood at the time of treatment, we find that the information increased the stated likelihood of negotiating any monetary aspect of students’ first job. While the treatment focused on monetary aspects, the information appears to have also nudged students’ intentions of negotiating non-monetary aspects of the job, with both males and females increasing their stated likelihood of negotiating non-monetary aspects by.
After following-up with the treated cohorts post-graduation, we find economically and statistically significant impacts on actual labor market outcomes. The treatment: (1) increased the likelihood of negotiating non-monetary aspects of students’ first jobs for both males and females; (2) treated males were 10pp (50%) more likely to have negotiated some monetary aspect of their job offers, compared to control males. Surprisingly, treated females were no more likely to negotiate than their control female peers; however, both groups negotiated at significantly higher rates than females in previous cohorts. We present several pieces of evidence that suggest that this is due, in part, to gender-specific treatment spillovers; (3) weakly increased the likelihood that students – especially females – were satisfied with their current job. While our estimates for annual earnings are imprecise, point estimates suggest that the treatment group had a lower gender earnings gap compared to the previous cohort. Finally, our analysis suggests that the mechanism behind the observed treatment effects operates through modifying beliefs for females, and through a saliency channel for males.
|
