We examine whether men and women of the same ability differ in their selection into a competitive environment. Participants in a laboratory experiment solve a real task, first under a non-competitive piece rate and then a competitive tournament incentive scheme. Although there are no gender differences in performance, men select the tournament twice as much as women when choosing their compensation scheme for the next performance. While seventy-three percent of the men select the tournament only thirty-five percent of the women make this choice. This gender gap in tournament entry is not explained by performance and factors such as risk and feedback aversion only play a negligible role. Instead the tournament-entry gap is driven by men being more overconfident and by gender differences in preferences for performing in a competition. The result is that women shy away from competition and men embrace it. * We thank Scott Kinross, who conducted all the experiments reported in this paper, for his excellent research assistance. We thank the editors and the referees who helped us improve the paper. We also

Even though the provision of equal opportunities for men and women has been a priority in many countries, large gender differences prevail in competitive high-ranking positions. Suggested explanations include discrimination and differences in preferences and human capital. In this paper we present experimental evidence in support of an additional factor: women may be less effective than men in competitive environments, even if they are able to perform similarly in noncompetitive environments. In a laboratory experiment we observe, as we increase the competitiveness of the environment, a signi�cant increase in performance for men, but not for women. This results in a signi�cant gender gap in performance in tournaments, while there is no gap when participants are paid according to piece rate. This effect is stronger when women have to compete against men than in single-sex competitive environments: this suggests that women may be able to perform in competitive environments per se. I.

Competitive high ranking positions are largely occupied by men, and women remain scarce in engineering and sciences. Explanations for these occupational differences focus on discrimination and preferences for work hours and field of study. We explore an additional explanation, namely that women and men may differ in their selection into competitive environments. Men and women in a laboratory experiment perform a real task under a non-competitive piece rate and a competitive tournament scheme. Although there are no gender differences in performance under either of these compensations, there is a substantial gender difference when participants subsequently choose the scheme they want to apply to their next performance. Twice as many men as women choose the tournament over the piece rate. This gender gap in tournament entry is neither explained by performance before nor after the entry decision. Furthermore, while men are more optimistic about their relative performance, differences in beliefs only explain a small share of the gap in tournament entry. In a final task, we find that women are less likely to select tournament compensations even when they select it for past performance. In predicting tournament entry we use the compensation choice for past performance as a control for non-tournament specific gender differences (such as risk aversion, general feedback aversion and overconfidence), and we find a large residual gender effect.

There are a number of application areas in which we want to hide information or to stop someone else from doing so. These include steganography, copyright marking, the study of covert channels in operating systems, lowprobability-of-intercept communications, and the study of subliminal channels in digital signature schemes. There follow abstracts of material from number of relevant publications. A six digit number (e.g. 034412) is an abstract number in ‘Computer and Communications Security Reviews’: see

This work has been supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation. The authors wish to thank participants of the “Teachers and Low Performing Schools ” panel at the November, 2001 APPAM Conference in Washington, D.C., as well as those participants of the University of Maryland Labor and Public Finance seminar, for their helpful comments and suggestions. Changing Labor Market Opportunities for Women

Centre de recherche et développement en économique (C.R.D.E.) and Département de sciences économiques, Université de Montréal, and Centre interuniversitaire de recherche et d'analyse sur les organisations (CIRANO).

This article uses canonical correlation analysis to investigate the income characteristics of active real estate agents in the United States who elected to participate in commercial and investment transactions. The model is unique in that it included activity areas to determine the specialties where agents generated the income and the type of clients who paid for the service. Future studies should consider the multiple dependent variable approach with activity areas to capture the relationship between income and the type of work involved.

Abstract not found

This paper addresses two questions: What accounts for the gender gap in labour-market outcomes? What are the driving forces behind the changes in the gender labour-market outcomes over the period 1968—97? It formulates a dynamic general equilibrium model of labour supply, occupational sorting and human capital accumulation in which gender discrimination and an earnings gap arise endogenously. It uses this model to quantify the driving forces behind the decline in the gender earnings gap and the increase in female labour-force participation, the proportion of women working in professional occupations and hours worked. It finds that labour-market experience is the most important factor explaining the gender earnings gap. In addition, statistical discrimination accounts for a large fraction of the observed gender earnings gap and its decline. It also finds that a large increase in aggregate productivity in professional occupations plays a major role in the increase in female labour-force participation, number of hours worked, and the proportion of females working in professional occupations. Although of less importance, demographic changes account for a substantial part of the increase in female labour-force participation and hours worked, whereas home production technology shocks do not.

We would like to thank seminar participants at the University of Chicago and IUPUI for comments and discussions and Meejung Chin, Vanessa Coca, and especially Anirban Basu, for excellent research assistance. Computer support was graciously provided by the Population Center at the University of Chicago. Please direct any comments to t-deleire@uchicago.edu and hlevy@uchicago.edu. Gender, Occupation Choice and the Risk of Death at Work Abstract: Women and men tend to work in different occupations. There has been substantial movement over the last forty years toward a more even distribution of men and women across occupations, but differences persist. Although a great deal of research has been devoted to the measurement of trends in occupation segregation by gender, very little work has focused on the underlying job choice process that generates this segregation. What makes men and women choose the jobs they do? Using employment data from the 1995- 1998 Current Population Surveys and data on occupational injuries and deaths from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we estimate conditional logit models of occupation choice as a function of the risk of work-related death and other job characteristics. Our results suggest that women choose safer jobs than men. Within gender, we find that single moms or dads are most averse to fatal risk, presumably because they have the most to lose. The effect of parenthood on married women is larger than its effect on married men, which is consistent with the idea that men’s contributions to raising children are more fully insured than women’s. Overall, men and women’s different preferences for risk can explain about one-quarter of the fact that men and women choose different occupations