Results
We report our results using four types of outcomes. First, we compare the gender gap in the level of influence of each partner in a cross-gender conversation. The gap is evaluated using three metrics, and their composite index: (1) the partner’s subjective survey report of the subject’s influence on their attitudes, (2) the pre-post change in the partner’s thermometer rating of the candidate most preferred by the subject in the pre-survey, (3) the pre-post change in the partner’s ranking of the candidate most preferred by the subject in the pre-survey. The index provides an indication of how much influence a person has in a conversation relative to the influence of their partner, and the average difference between partners provides a metric of the gender gap. Our expectations for the value of this metric for each competing theory are provided in Table Theoretical expectations of influence gap.Second, we look at a conversation-level metric of convergence in the thermometer ratings of the full set of candidates, which shows how attitudes converge or diverge at the conversation level and beyond just the evaluations of the top-ranked candidate. Third, we examine the influence metrics (the same set as the gender gap analysis) at the individual level, to more closely examine the dynamics of who has influence and whose influence is changing in response to the experimental intervention. Finally, we use a dictionary-based evaluation of gendered language to compare the gendered language used by men and women in each type of conversation.