The Gendered (Lookist) Situation of Venture Capital
Posted by The Situationist Staff on May 4, 2014
From Harvard Business School’s Working Knowledge, here are excerpts of an article by Carmen Nobel about research co-authored by HBS’s Alison Wood Brooks.
If you’re in search of startup funding, it pays to be a good-looking guy.
A series of three studies reveals that investors prefer pitches from male entrepreneurs over those from female entrepreneurs, even when the content of the pitches is identical. Attractive men are the most persuasive pitchers of all, the studies show.
The findings are detailed in the paper Investors Prefer Entrepreneurial Ventures Pitched by Attractive Men, published in the March 2014 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
“Our paper provides concrete proof that gender discrimination exists in the context of entrepreneurial pitching,” says Alison Wood Brooks, an assistant professor at Harvard Business School who coauthored the paper with Laura Huang . . . Sarah Wood Kearney . . . and Fiona E. Murray . . . .
As a behavioral psychologist, Brooks studies the situational variables that influence personal persuasion. Kearney, her twin sister, is an entrepreneur and scholar whose research is fueled by both a frustration with and curiosity about the dearth of venture capital for women. (In the first half of 2013, companies with at least one female founder secured some 13 percent of total venture funding, up from 4 percent in 2004, according to data from PitchBook.) Murray is Kearney’s thesis adviser. Huang, whom Brooks met in the initial stages of their research, studies the role of “gut feel” in investment decisions.
THE GUYS HAVE IT
In their first study, the research team examined video recordings of 90 randomly selected pitches from three real-life entrepreneurial pitch competitions, held in various United States locations over a three-year period. In each case, a panel of angel investors had judged the pitches and awarded startup capital to the winners.
The researchers recruited a separate panel of 60 seasoned angel investors to watch the videos and code them across several measures, including physical attractiveness—rating the entrepreneurs on a scale of 1 (very unattractive) to 7 (very attractive). The coders were blind to the actual competition results.
The analysis showed a significant relationship between an entrepreneur’s gender and whether a pitch had been successful. Male entrepreneurs were 60 percent likelier to receive a funding prize than were female entrepreneurs. Among those male entrepreneurs, investor-deemed attractiveness led to a 36 percent increase in pitch success. But for female entrepreneurs, their looks had no apparent effect on the success of their pitches.
The second study was an experiment designed to isolate the effect of gender on pitch persuasiveness. The researchers used 521 participants to watch two entrepreneurial pitch videos online. In each case, one of the pitches had won funding in real life. Participants in the experiment, roughly half of whom were women, were tasked with guessing the actual winner, with the incentive of a monetary reward for a correct guess.
The pitches included still images and a voiceover narration by the entrepreneur. This format enabled the researchers to assign a gender to the entrepreneur—dubbing in a male voice for some videos and a female voice for others, while the content of the narrations remained identical.
All else being equal, 68.33 percent of participants favored ventures pitched by male voices, while only 31.67 percent chose female-voiced pitches. Importantly, the gender effect held steady regardless of the “investor’s” gender.
“We saw the same discriminatory effects between male and female participants,” Brooks says.
In the third study, . . .
* * *
NEXT STEPS AND LESSONS LEARNED
In the secondary stages of their exploration, the researchers plan to dive deeper into gender dynamics. Among the questions they are pursuing: What happens when the female entrepreneur is perceived as stereotypically masculine vs. feminine? Is a female entrepreneur more likely to be funded if her business targets female customers? Will a successful track record increase a woman’s chances of securing capital?
Brooks is hardly shocked by the results of the studies thus far. “I was surprised to find the effects consistently across both field and lab settings,” she says. “But, in general, I find our results to be more sad than surprising.”
Still, she’s hopeful that the research provides a wake-up call to the venture capital industry.
“Awareness is a critical first step,” Brooks says. “Though gender in entrepreneurship has become a hot topic . . . , we haven’t seen much concrete data on the topic until now. We hope this research leads investors and entrepreneurs to become more supportive of male and female entrepreneurs alike.”
Read the entire article here.
Related Situationist posts:
- The Gendered Situation at Harvard Law School – Part III
- Implicit Gender Bias in Legal Profession
- The Gendered Situation at Harvard Law School – Part II
- The Gendered Situation at Harvard Law School – Part I
- The Situation of Gender in the Workplace
- Nancy Gertner on the Situation of Feminism
- Judge Nancy Gertner on her Situation
- The Gendered Situation of Recommendation Letters
- The Double-Binded Situation of Even Women Lawyers
- Examining the Gendered Situation of Harvard Business School
- A Rose by any other Name Might Become a Judge
- The Nerdy, Gendered Situation of Computer Science
- The Gendered Situation of Science & Math
- The Situation of Sexism
- Sexual Harassment at Wal-Mart?
- The Gendered Situation of Math, Humanities, and Romance
- Women’s Situational Bind
- The Nerdy, Gendered Situation of Computer Science
- The Gendered Situation of Chess
- The Situation of Gender-Science Stereotypes
- The Situation of Gender and Science
- The Gendered Situation of Science & Math
- Gender-Imbalanced Situation of Math, Science, and Engineering
- Sex Differences in Math and Science
- Women’s Situation in Economics
- Your Group is Bad at Math
- Belonging
Rate this:
Related
This entry was posted on May 4, 2014 at 11:13 am and is filed under Implicit Associations, Social Psychology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Leave a Reply