請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/102213完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 陳儀 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Josie I Chen | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 曾文昱 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Wen-Yu Tseng | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2026-04-08T16:20:41Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2026-04-09 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2026-04-08 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2026 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2026-03-17 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | Arulampalam, W., Booth, A. L., and Bryan, M. L. (2007). Is there a glass ceiling over Europe? Exploring the gender pay gap across the wage distribution. ILR Review, 60(2):163–186.
Backus, P., Cubel, M., Guid, M., Sánchez-Pagés, S., and López Mañas, E. (2023). Gender, competition, and performance: Evidence from chess players. Quantitative Economics, 14(1):349–380. Baik, K. H., Chowdhury, S. M., and Ramalingam, A. (2021). Group size and matching protocol in contests. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d’économique, 54(4):1716–1736. Berge, L. I. O., Bjorvatn, K., Pires, A. J. G., and Tungodden, B. (2015). Competitive in the lab, successful in the field? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 118:303–317. Blau, F. D. and Kahn, L. M. (2017). The gender wage gap: Extent, trends, and explanations. Journal of Economic Literature, 55(3):789–865. Booth, A. and Nolen, P. (2012). Choosing to compete: How different are girls and boys? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 81(2):542–555. 57 Booth, A. and Yamamura, E. (2018). Performance in mixed-sex and single-sex competitions: What we can learn from speedboat races in Japan. Review of Economics and Statistics, 100(4):581–593. Buser, T., Niederle, M., and Oosterbeek, H. (2014). Gender, competitiveness, and career choices. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(3):1409–1447. Buser, T., Niederle, M., and Oosterbeek, H. (2024). Can competitiveness predict education and labor market outcomes? Evidence from incentivized choice and survey measures. Review of Economics and Statistics, pages 1–45. Chen, D. L., Schonger, M., and Wickens, C. (2016). oTree—An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 9:88–97. Chen, Z. C., Ong, D., and Sheremeta, R. M. (2015). The gender difference in the value of winning. Economics Letters, 137:226–229. Datta Gupta, N., Poulsen, A., and Villeval, M. C. (2013). Gender matching and competitiveness: Experimental evidence. Economic Inquiry, 51(1):816–835. De Sousa, J. and Hollard, G. (2023). From micro to macro gender differences: Evidence from field tournaments. Management Science, 69(6):3358–3399. Dechenaux, E., Kovenock, D., and Sheremeta, R. M. (2015). A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions and tournaments. Experimental Economics, 18:609–669. Fallucchi, F., Nosenzo, D., and Reuben, E. (2020). Measuring preferences for competition with experimentally-validated survey questions. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 178:402–423. Flory, J. A., Leibbrandt, A., and List, J. A. (2015). Do competitive workplaces deter female workers? A large-scale natural field experiment on job entry decisions. The Review of Economic Studies, 82(1):122–155. Gneezy, U., Niederle, M., and Rustichini, A. (2003). Performance in competitive environments: Gender differences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3):1049–1074. Goldin, C., Katz, L. F., and Kuziemko, I. (2006). The homecoming of American college women: The reversal of the college gender gap. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(4):133–156. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., and Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6):1464. Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., and Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2):197. Holm, H. and Engseld, P. (2005). Choosing bargaining partners—an experimental study on the impact of information about income, status and gender. Experimental Economics, 8(3):183–216. Jetter, M. and Walker, J. K. (2018). The gender of opponents: Explaining gender differences in performance and risk-taking? European Economic Review, 109:238–256. Lane, K. A., Banaji, M. R., Nosek, B. A., and Greenwald, A. G. (2007). Understanding and using the implicit association test: IV: What we know (so far) about the method. Mago, S. D. and Razzolini, L. (2019). Best-of-five contest: An experiment on gender differences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 162:164–187. Niederle, M. and Vesterlund, L. (2007). Do women shy away from competition? do men compete too much? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3):1067–1101. Niederle, M. and Vesterlund, L. (2011). Gender and competition. Annual Review of Economics, 3(1):601–630. Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., and Robinson, J. C. (2008). The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related outcomes: a meta-analysis of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2):270. Rockenbach, B. and Waligora, M. (2016). Desire to win drives overbidding in Tullock contests. Available at SSRN 2727153. Sheremeta, R. M. (2010). Experimental comparison of multi-stage and one-stage contests. Games and Economic Behavior, 68(2):731–747. Tullock, G. (1980). Efficient rent seeking. In 40 Years of Research on Rent Seeking 1, pages 105–120. Springer. | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/102213 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 利用雙人塔洛克競賽，本研究探討性別顯著性以及選擇對手的可能性如何影響競爭環境中的努力程度。我們採用受試者間設計，將受試者隨機指派到以下三個情境之一：(1) 無性別資訊，無選擇對手可能、(2)揭露性別資訊，無選擇對手可能、(3) 揭露性別資訊，可根據性別選擇對手。我們也收集了其他可能影響競爭行為性別差異的變數，包含風險偏好以及內隱性別刻板印象。
我們採用一個簡單的競賽模型，其中玩家對獲勝的非貨幣價值存在差異，並假設女性對獲勝的重視程度高於男性。與此框架一致，當性別身份公開並顯著時，我們發現無論男女在面對同性對手時出價都高於異性對手，而當性別隱藏時則未出現此差異。另外，當受試者可以自由選擇對手時，出價亦呈現上升趨勢，但未達統計顯著性。 這些發現凸顯了性別身分顯著性與配對規則，如何影響教育與勞動市場等競爭環境中的努力程度。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | This thesis examines how gender salience and the possibility of choosing one's opponent shape competitive effort in a two-player Tullock contest. Using a between-subjects design, participants are randomly assigned to one of three treatments: (1) no information and no choice of opponents, (2) gender information provided but no choice of opponents, and (3) gender information provided with the ability to choose opponents. We also include variables that may help explain gender differences in competitive behavior, such as risk preferences and gender stereotypes.
We use a simple contest model in which players differ in their non-monetary value of winning and hypothesize that women place a higher value on winning than men. Consistent with this framework, when gender is revealed, we find both men and women bid more against same-gender than against opposite-gender opponents, whereas no such differences arise when gender is concealed. Across all treatments, bids are systematically above the symmetric Nash benchmark. Bids also tend to be higher under endogenous than exogenous matching, although these differences are not statistically significant. These findings highlight the role of identity salience and matching rules in shaping effort in competitive environments such as education and labor markets. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2026-04-08T16:20:41Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2026-04-08T16:20:41Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | Verification Letter from the Oral Examination Committee i
Acknowledgements iii 摘要 v Abstract vii Contents ix List of Figures xiii List of Tables xv Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Chapter 2 Literature Review 5 2.1 Competitiveness as a Channel for the Gender Gap . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2 Opponent Identity Shapes Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2.1 Tournament Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2.2 Performance Under Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2.3 Field Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.3 Endogenous Opponent Selection in Competition . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Chapter 3 Experimental Design 13 3.1 Experimental Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.1.1 Tullock Contest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.1.2 Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.1.3 Risk Preference Elicitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.1.4 Implicit Association Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.2 Subjects and Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Chapter 4 Model and Hypotheses 21 4.1 Nash Equilibrium under Symmetric Valuations . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.2 Heterogeneous Values of Winning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4.2.1 Overbidding and Values of Winning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4.2.2 Model Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.2.3 Equilibrium with Heterogeneous Valuations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.3 Treatment-Specific Testable Predictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.3.1 Baseline Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.3.2 GEN‑EXO Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.3.3 GEN‑END (Treatment 3: Endogenous Matching) . . . . . . . . . . 27 Chapter 5 Results 29 5.1 Overall Effort and Treatment Means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.1.1 Overbidding Relative to the Nash Benchmark . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.1.2 Treatment Patterns by Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 5.2 Opponent-Gender Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 5.2.1 Opponent-Gender Effects by Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 5.2.2 Comparison to Theoretical Predictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 5.3 Matching-Protocol Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5.3.1 Opponent-Choice Patterns in GEN-END . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5.3.2 Effect of Matching Protocol on Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Chapter 6 Conclusion 53 References 57 Appendix A — Instructions 61 A.1 Instructions for the Baseline Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 A.1.1 General Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 A.1.2 Risk Preference Elicitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 A.1.3 Tullock Contest: Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 A.1.4 Tullock Contest: Comprehension Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 A.1.5 Tullock Contest: Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 A.1.6 Implicit Association Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 A.1.7 Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 A.2 Instructions for the GEN-EXO Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 A.2.1 Tullock Contest: Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 A.2.2 Tullock Contest: Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 A.2.3 Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 A.3 Instructions for the GEN-END Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 A.3.1 Tullock Contest: Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 A.3.2 Tullock Contest: Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 A.3.3 Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Appendix B — Matching Algorithm Used in GEN-END Treatment 77 | - |
| dc.language.iso | en | - |
| dc.subject | 性別差異 | - |
| dc.subject | 競爭行為 | - |
| dc.subject | 塔洛克競賽 | - |
| dc.subject | 對手選擇 | - |
| dc.subject | 獲勝價值 | - |
| dc.subject | 實驗室實驗 | - |
| dc.subject | gender differences | - |
| dc.subject | competitive behavior | - |
| dc.subject | Tullock contest | - |
| dc.subject | opponent choice | - |
| dc.subject | value of winning | - |
| dc.subject | laboratory experiment | - |
| dc.title | 內生對手配對對競爭行為之影響：性別顯著競賽的實驗證據 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | The Effect of Endogenous Opponent Matching on Competitive Behavior: Evidence from a Gender-Salient Contest | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 114-2 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 賴建宇;汪澤民 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Chien-Yu Lai;Tse-Min Wang | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 性別差異,競爭行為塔洛克競賽對手選擇獲勝價值實驗室實驗 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | gender differences,competitive behaviorTullock contestopponent choicevalue of winninglaboratory experiment | en |
| dc.relation.page | 78 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202600844 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(限校園內公開) | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2026-03-18 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 經濟學系 | - |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | 2031-03-11 | - |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 經濟學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-114-2.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 1.94 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。