Abstract
Abstract: Do women incur higher costs by contradicting their male group members? If so, what is the efficiency consequence to the group? I study these questions in a quasi-laboratory experiment where participants first work on a short task with different participants to choose their partner, then work on the main task with the partner they have chosen. I find that both women's and men's contradiction significantly reduces the probability of being chosen as a partner by both male and female group members. Also, the effect is stronger when the contradiction corrects the male group members' (but not necessarily female group members') wrong behaviors after controlling for their contribution to the group work. However, women's contradiction does not receive obviously stronger reactions and that contribution to the group work is the main determinant of male and female group members' partner choice, suggesting that behavioral interventions to increase women's contribution of ideas in group work, which can also increase contradiction, would bring net benefits and help to close the labor market gender gap. The results also suggest people, especially men, may avoid partners who would make good contradictions even at the cost of lowering their expected payoff.