ArticlePloS one2026
Is the evaluation of performance gender specific? Evidence from two large experimental studies.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is often assumed that women receive less recognition than men for the same work or performance. We test this assumption via two large-scale online-survey experiments involving 3,157 (Study I) and 2,909 (Study II) respondents respectively. In both studies, subjects watched a two-minute video in which either a female or a male character presented either a male-associated topic, a gender-neutral topic, or a female-associated topic. Since former research suggests that the attractiveness of the presenter increases performance evaluations, we also varied the attractiveness of the presenting characters. Study I uses a 2 (gender) by 2 (attractiveness) by 3 (topic) design. The video presentations were created using an artificial intelligence video-maker that used human-like avatars. In Study II, the presentations were conducted by real humans. The findings from both studies suggest that gender has no influence on how respondents evaluate presentations. Additionally, in Study I we find that attractive male avatar presenters receive more favorable evaluations than less attractive males. In contrast, female avatar presenters do not receive an attractiveness bonus. However, when using real humans instead of avatars we did not find this attractiveness bonus for men.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.