In the first part of the project, by using a novel method, we control subjects' skills and analyze the role of noise on entry in a rank-order tournament. In our 2x2 experiment, we change whether the noise is drawn from a known or unknown distribution or whether the noise is drawn once or twice (maximum of them are taken into account when it is drawn twice). We expect no effect of the number of draws on tournament entry, decrease in entry when the noise is drawn from an unknown distribution, and there is no role of competitiveness trait in subjects' tournament entry choices as in Van Veldhuizen (2022). We have 4 main insights from our experiments: First, we find no effect of the number of draws. Second, when the noise distribution is unknown, females enter tournaments less often than when it is known. However, males' entry is not affected by whether the noise distribution is known or unknown. Furthermore, we find that although there is a gender gap in tournament entry when the noise distribution is unknown, there is not when it is known. Finally, unlike Van Veldhuizen (2022), we find that although both males and females choose a tournament more than the lottery with the same payoff value when the noise distribution is known, only males do so when the noise distribution is unknown.
In the second part of the project, we analyze how males' and females' tournament entry choices differ when they have asymmetric skills controlling for noise or asymmetric noise controlling for skill compared to baseline (symmetric contest, where both contestants have the same skill and noise). In this part of the project, the noise is drawn from a known distribution. As found in the first part of the project, here, we also find that when the skills of the contestants are the same and noise is drawn similarly for both contestants from a known distribution, there is no gender gap. Furthermore, when the noise is drawn from known distribution, gender gap disappears even under asymmetry: tournament entry choices of males and females are similar when they are advantageous or disadvantageous positions for chance or skill. Then we look at how asymmetry affects tournament entry choices compared to baseline. We find that although being advantaged does not lead higher entry in asymmetric skill and asymmetric chance treatments compared to baseline, being disadvantaged decreases entry in asymmetric skill but not in asymmetric chance treatments. This behavior stems from the beliefs. Although advantaged (disadvantaged) players in asymmetric skill treatment believe that their probability of winning is significantly higher (lower) compared to symmetric treatment, these do not hold in asymmetric chance treatment.