Kate Antonovics

Are All the Good Men Married? Uncovering the Sources of the Marital Wage Premium

A longstanding and yet unsettled question in labor economics is: does marriage cause mens wages to rise? Cross-sectional wage studies consistently find that married men earn significantly higher wages than do men who are not currently married. However, it is well-known that inferring causal relationships from crosssectional analysis is inappropriate because of the biases introduced by unobserved heterogeneity. As a means of circumventing this problem, this paper uses data on identical twins to control for unobserved heterogeneity. Our estimates suggest that marriage increases mens wages by as much as 27%, and that little, if any, of the cross-sectional relationship between marriage and wages is due to selection. In addition, we find little evidence that the marital-wage premium is a consequence of household specialization.

A New Look at Racial Profiling: Evidence from the Boston Police Department

This paper provides new evidence on racial profiling using information on the race of both motorists and officers. Extending the model of Knowles, Persico, and Todd (2001), we develop a new test for distinguishing between preference-based and statistical discrimination. Our test is based on the notion that if search decisions are driven purely by statistical discrimination, then they should be independent of officer race. Our results, by contrast, demonstrate that officers are more likely to search if officer race and driver race differ. We then investigate and rule out two alternative explanations for our findings.

Games and Discrimination: Lessons From the Weakest Link

Empirically determining whether wage differentials arise because of discrimination is extremely difficult, and distinguishing between different theories of discrimination is harder still. This paper exploits a number of unique features of a high-stakes television game show to determine which contestants discriminate and why. In the show, contestants take turns answering a series of trivia questions, and, at the end of each round of questions, one contestant is voted off by the other players in the round. Our results suggest no evidence of discriminatory voting patterns by males against females or by whites against blacks. However, somewhat surprisingly, we find that in the early rounds of the game women appear to discriminate against men. We test three competing theories for the voting behavior of women: preference-based discrimination, statistical discrimination and strategic discrimination. In doing so, we highlight the types of experimental designs that could be used to distinguish between these theories. Only preference-based discrimination is consistent with the voting patterns.

The Effects of Gender Interactions in the Lab and in the Field

An important issue with conducting economic analysis in the lab is whether the results generalize to real-world environments where the stakes and subject pool are considerably different. We examine data from the game show The Weakest Link to determine whether the gender of ones opponent affects performance. We then attempt to replicate the competitive structure of the game show in the lab with an undergraduate subject pool. The results in the lab only match when we both employ high stakes in the lab ( 50) and limit our analysis to young contestants in the game show (age < 33).

Experimentation and Job Choice

In this article, we examine optimal job choices when jobs differ in the rate at which they reveal information about workers’ skills. We then analyze how the optimal level of experimentation changes over a worker’s career and characterize job transitions and wage growth over the life cycle. Using the Dictionary of Occupational Titles merged with the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979, we then construct an index of how much information different occupations reveal about workers’ skills and document patterns of occupational choice and wage growth that are consistent with a trade-off between information and wages.

WERE MINORITY STUDENTS DISCOURAGED FROM APPLYING TO UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA CAMPUSES AFTER THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BAN

This paper uses student-level data to investigate how the college application behavior of underrepresented minorities (URMs) changed in response to the 1998 end of affirmative action in admissions at the University of California (UC). We show that all URMs experienced a drop in their probability of admission to at least one UC campus. However, the relative decline in URM SAT score-sending rates—our proxy for application rates—was small and concentrated at Berkeley and UCLA among underrepresented minorities who experienced the largest relative drop in their predicted probability of admission. In addition, we find some evidence of a shift toward less-selective UC campuses rather than out of the UC system. Overall, our paper highlights the stability of URM application behavior in the face of substantial declines in their admission rates.

The Effect of Banning Affirmative Action on College Admissions Policies and Student Quality

Using administrative data from the University of California (UC), we present evidence that UC campuses changed the weight given to SAT scores, high school GPA, and family background in response to California’s ban on race-based affirmative action, and that these changes were able to substantially (though far from completely) offset the fall in minority admissions rates. For both minorities and nonminorities, these changes to the estimated admissions rule hurt students with relatively strong academic credentials and whose parents were relatively affluent and educated. Despite these compositional shifts, however, average student quality (as measured by expected first- year college GPA) remained stable.

Competing Against the Opposite Sex

Given the tournament-style structure of many aspects of the labor market, one potentially powerful explanation for gender differences in pay and promotion is that men and women respond differently to competitive environments. We examine data from the high-stakes television game show The Weakest Link in order to determine whether men outperform women in competitive settings and whether the performance of men and women is affected by the gender of their opponents. The data show that in head-to-head competition men beat their female opponents over 72% of the time. Controlling for ability using past performance explains at most 27% of this differential. Our results also suggest that mens relative success arises because men perform better when they compete against women than against men, and that the higher the proportion of women among their competitors the better men perform. In contrast, we do not find strong evidence that the performance of women is affected by the gender of their opponents.

The effect of banning affirmative action on human capital accumulation prior to college entry

This paper examines how banning affirmative action in university admissions affects both overall academic achievement and the racial gap in academic achievement prior to college entry. Focusing on college-bound high school students, we use a difference-in-difference methodology to analyze the impact of the end of race-based affirmative action at the University of California in 1998 on both the overall level of SAT scores and high school GPA, and the racial gap in SAT scores and high school GPA. We find little evidence of either a decline in academic achievement or a widening of the racial gap in academic achievement after the ban.JEL codesI21; I24