Stereotypes and Belief Updating

Katherine B. Coffman; Manuela  Collis; Leena  Kulkarni

Working Paper | HBS Working Paper Series | 2019

Stereotypes and Belief Updating

by Katherine B. Coffman, Manuela Collis and Leena Kulkarni

Abstract

We explore how self-assessments respond to feedback about own ability across a range of tasks, with a particular focus on how gender stereotypes impact belief updating. Participants in our experiments take tests of their ability across different domains. Absent feedback, beliefs of own ability are strongly influenced by gender stereotypes: holding own ability fixed, individuals are more confident in gender congruent domains (i.e., male-typed domains for men, female-typed domains for women). We then provide noisy feedback about own absolute performance to participants and elicit posterior beliefs. Gender stereotypes have significant predictive power for posterior beliefs, both through their influence on prior beliefs, as predicted by the Bayesian model, but also through their influence on updating, a non-Bayesian channel. Both men and women’s beliefs are more responsive to information in gender congruent domains than gender incongruent domains. This is primarily driven by differential reactions to exogenously-received good news about own ability: both men and women react more to good news when it arrives in a gender congruent domain than when it arrives in a gender incongruent domain. Our results have important implications for understanding how feedback shapes, and perpetuates, gender gaps in self-assessments.

Keywords: beliefs; Gender; Prejudice and Bias; Information; Performance; Perception;

Language: English

Format: Print

61 pages

Read Now

Citation:

Coffman, Katherine B., Manuela Collis, and Leena Kulkarni. "Stereotypes and Belief Updating." Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 19-068, January 2019. (Revised November 2019.)

Case | HBS Case Collection | November 2019

Starbucks: Reaffirming Commitment to the Third Place Ideal

Francesca Gino, Katherine B. Coffman and Jeff Huizinga

On April 12, 2018, two African American entrepreneurs had scheduled a business meeting at a Starbucks in Philadelphia’s Rittenhouse Square neighborhood. They sat without ordering, waiting for a local businessman to show up for the meeting. The store manager called 911 on them, despite the fact that they were behaving neither violently nor disruptively. When the police arrived soon after the call, they arrested the young men. The incident was viewed by the Starbucks’ leadership team, including the CEO, as “a disheartening situation” and, in the words of John Kelly, the company’s Senior VP of Public Affairs and Social Impact, “a profound failure to live up to our ideals and a violation of our values.” Starbucks, which employed around 175,000 individuals nationwide and served more than 4 million customers daily in its approximately 8,000 U.S. stores, strived to abide by its mission statement: “…To inspire and nurture the human spirit, one cup, one person, one neighborhood at a time.” The case describes how the company and its leadership responded to the crisis. To react to the incident, the leadership decided to close down its stores for a day of unconscious bias training, aimed at raising awareness of racial bias and discrimination in particular. The company also started a journey of providing more training and development for the partners, to assure that they lived by the company values on a daily basis, and revised store policy that, the leadership believed, contributed to how the store managers and employees in the Rittenhouse Square store behaved back in April 2018. As the case closes, CEO Steve Johnson reflects on how he could assure that every Starbucks employee not only understood the company mission and values, but truly connected to them emotionally and carry them out daily in their work.

Citation:

Gino, Francesca, Katherine B. Coffman, and Jeff Huizinga. "Starbucks: Reaffirming Commitment to the Third Place Ideal." Harvard Business School Case 920-016, November 2019. View Details

Cite View Details Educators

Labor market outcomes depend, in part, upon an individual’s willingness to put herself forward for different career opportunities. In this paper, we use both laboratory and field experiments to better understand decisions around willingness to apply for higher return, more challenging work, with a focus on gender differences. We find that, in male-typed domains, women are less likely to view themselves as well-qualified for a given opening, both because of differences in forecasts about own ability, but also, and importantly, because of differences in how high men and women believe “the bar” is. We show that these beliefs matter for application decisions. Finally, we provide evidence that a simple intervention, in which required qualifications are stated more precisely and objectively, helps to close the gender gap in willingness to apply, increasing both the average talent and the diversity of the applicant pool.

Faculty & Research

Stereotypes and Belief Updating

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author