How competitive sports can help reduce gender inequality
In the job market, a competitive spirit seems to be sought after by many employers. This is likely why former athletes often receive certain benefits when they are hired. These benefits may take the form of a salary bonus—ranging from 5% to 20% depending on the study—employee benefits, or even greater employability. Several studies have also shown that participating in competitive sports shapes behavior, regardless of the type of sport practiced. Exposed to intense competition, athletes’ risk tolerance is said to increase, and their desire to win serves as the fundamental driving force behind their performance.
Marc Willinger, University of Montpellier
Could this be a way to narrow the gender gap? If women, through competitive sports, developed a mindset more inclined toward risk-taking and a competitive spirit, would they have more job opportunities and the potential for higher earnings?
To demonstrate this, we conducted an experiment comparing athletes and non-athletes in terms of their attitudes toward risk and their competitive spirit. The results highlight similarities between female athletes and male non-athletes.
Participating in sports helps bridge the gap
How can we determine whether someone is competitive or not? To do so, we used a variation of the protocol developed by two women, Muriel Niederle of Stanford University and Lise Vesterlund of the University of Pittsburgh. They focused on gender differences in this area: a lack of competitiveness among women and excessive competitiveness among men, relative to their respective performance levels. In our experiment, participants were asked to perform two tasks in succession: a counting task and a ball-throwing task.
In the first task, participants had to count, within five minutes, the number of “1”s in a series of tables where they were mixed in with “0”s. In the second task, participants had to throw three foam balls into a wastebasket two meters away.
In each case, participants had a choice between two payment methods. The first option was “pay-per-shot,” which guaranteed that participants would be paid based on their performance: each correct count or each ball in the basket earned 50 cents. It was also possible to opt for “tournament pay”: this payment method pits the participant against other participants who have also chosen this option. This option allows for a higher payout—2 euros per correct count or per ball in the basket if the participant wins. However, it carries a risk: only the participant with the highest score in their group is paid. The others win nothing. By choosing tournament payout, participants reveal their competitive spirit and their appetite for risk-taking, which was also measured independently using a specific individual risk-taking task.
78 athletes competing in individual sports who regularly (at least once a month) participate in national and/or international competitions were selected to take part in the study, along with 77 other participants not involved in competitive sports. Approximately 85% of the participants were students. The two groups were comparable in terms of age distribution, gender, and educational level. All participants were volunteers.
61% of athletes chose the tournament for the ball-throwing task, compared with only 27% of non-athletes. For the counting task, 57% of athletes chose the tournament, compared with 41% of non-athletes. Female athletes proved to be less competitive than their male counterparts, but more competitive than non-athletic men. In the ball-throwing task, 50% of female athletes opted for the tournament, compared to 36% of non-athlete men and only 20% of non-athlete women. Similarly, for the counting task, 50% of female athletes opted for the tournament, compared to 42% of non-athlete men.
A similar pattern is observed with regard to risk tolerance. Female athletes have a level of risk tolerance comparable to that of non-athletic men, whereas in the general population, virtually all studies conclude that men have a higher risk tolerance than women.
These findings suggest that participating in competitive sports causes female athletes to become more like men in terms of their risk-taking tendencies and competitiveness, thereby narrowing the gender gaps in these two aspects of their preferences.
Should a competitive spirit be fostered as early as elementary school?
What factors might explain this? Four possible hypotheses come to mind.
First, female athletes may perform better in competitive tasks than non-athletes. They may prefer to be paid in a tournament setting because they believe they can achieve higher scores under competitive pressure. Second, female athletes may have a greater appetite for risk and, for this reason, opt for the tournament more frequently than non-athletes. Third, they may be less prosocial than non-athletes: they may be less concerned about the negative consequences imposed on others by choosing the tournament format—that is, the fact that there are losers who are not rewarded for their efforts in the tasks. Finally, fourth, female athletes may have developed a strong taste for competition.
Our data clearly refute the first two hypotheses. Female athletes’ scores on both experimental tasks are no better than those of non-athletes. Although they are slightly more inclined to take risks than non-athletes, risk tolerance has a negligible effect on the probability of choosing the tournament.
The third hypothesis regarding prosocial behavior is also ruled out. This factor is measured using experiments developed in experimental economics: the dictator game and the prisoner’s dilemma game. In the first, participants are paired anonymously. One member of the pair, the dictator, receives €10 from the experimenter; the other receives nothing. The dictator can transfer all or part of the amount received to their partner, or choose to keep it all.
"Prisoner's dilemma" games are based on the following scenario. Two criminals are caught and thrown into prison, in separate cells. When interrogated, they have the choice between remaining silent or shifting the blame onto their accomplice. If one confesses while the other remains silent, the first is released and the second receives a harsh sentence. If both confess, however, the sentence will be harsher than if they had both remained silent.
Admittedly, we were able to show that female athletes are less generous in the dictator game and less cooperative in the prisoner’s dilemma. Nevertheless, the prosociality measured in this way does not show a significant correlation with the probability of choosing the tournament.
We therefore conclude that female athletes’ competitive spirit is the key factor in their likelihood of choosing the tournament, a conclusion supported by responses to a separate questionnaire measuring competitiveness. It is also worth noting that choosing the tournament allows athletes to compare themselves to others and to determine whether their own score was better than that of other randomly selected individuals—information that is particularly valued and sought after by athletes.
Participating in sports with a strong competitive element thus appears to make female athletes more competitive and foster a taste for risk—two qualities valued and sought after by many employers. Women’s involvement in competitive sports thus emerges as a way to reduce certain gender gaps, an approach that could be encouraged inthe education of young girls from an early age.
Marc Willinger, Professor of Economics, Behavioral and Experimental Economics, University of Montpellier
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Readthe original article.