Individual-level influence metrics
Because a conversation is a dynamic interaction between two people, the change in the influence gap metrics might come from two mechanisms—a change in the persuasiveness of one partner, or a change in the other partner’s propensity to be influenced. In order to distinguish these two mechanisms, we evaluate the treatment effects of mislabeling on both the influence exerted by and the propensity to be influenced of each discussion partner separately. Fig. The top panel represents the level of persuasiveness of respondents when the person they are influencing is a woman, whereas the bottom panel represents influence on a male partner. The difference between the top and bottom panels for cross-gender conversations is the influence gap measure presented in panel A of Fig. Contrary to expectations, women do not have less influence in the conversation than men Figure While our initial emphasis was on increasing women’s influence by changing how they themselves are perceived by their male partners, what we discover is that changing how women perceive (and, therefore, treat) their male partner had a bigger impact. This finding is particularly notable because it suggests that men are not inherently or immutably less persuadable than women—they are only less persuadable when their partners recognize them as men. In the experimental condition where women do not realize they are talking to a man, women are able to exert more influence on their partner. Put another way, men’s attitudes are more malleable when they are not treated like men, which suggests that the assumptions and behavioral decisions that discussion partners make when interacting with men reinforce the influence gap, possibly even more than the assumptions and behavioral decisions that people make when interacting with women.Average influence on partners by partner’s gender and treatment condition. Point estimates and error bars indicate average level of influence exerted by the subject. Influence is measured with the aggregate influence index (panel A in Fig. The individual-level analysis provides evidence that both gendered behavior and gendered perceptions interact in complex ways within a dynamic conversation. Although only one partner is treated (views the mis-assigned gendered avatar for their partner), the treatment has effects on both parties in the conversation. Because their perceptions are not directly manipulated, the only way effects on the mislabeled partner are possible is if their partner changes their language or conversational style in response to the gendered avatar of their partner, and they respond in kind. We examine this explanation in the next section.