l o n g w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n o n t h e e x t e n t o f t h e i r n o n c o m p l i a n c e) a n d o f " F u l l C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y " (e. g. , n o p u b l i c d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f p h o t o s o r n o n c o m p l i a n c e) .

We conduct an experiment that examines the relationship between girls only schooling and risk taking and competitive behavior. In it, we compare decisions made by students in an all‐girls' school to those made by students in a closely matched coeducational school. We further investigate the developmental nature of this behavior by comparing choices made by younger students (Grades 7 and 8) with those of older students (Grades 11 and 12). We focus on the differences between those who select into the all‐girls' school, and find that although girls educated in a single sex environment are the most risk averse, they are also among the most competitive. These results lend texture to the hypothesis that “nurture matters” in the gender differences debate. (JEL C93, J16, I21)

Implicit associations and biases are carried without awareness or conscious direction, yet there is reason to believe they may be influenced by social pressures. In this paper, I study social pressure as a motive to give, as well as giving itself under conditions of implicit bias. In doing so, I pair the Implicit Association Test (IAT), commonplace in other social sciences, with a laboratory dictator game with sorting. I find that despite its popularity, the IAT does not predict dictator giving and social pressure does not explain acts of giving from biased dictators. These results are indicative of the meaningful difference between having an implicit bias and acting on one. As such, results can be thought of as a bound on the external validity of the IAT.

No abstract

A new kind of expert is flourishing in the modern marketplace of ideas. Should we be worried?