We conducted a controlled experiment to investigate how different gender frames in instructions and norm salience affect economic behavior and norm compliance. Our experiment, conducted in German, systematically varied the framing of instructions by using a male, female, or gender-inclusive form and whether a prescriptive norm was introduced. Participants played three standard two-player economic games measuring prosocial behavior, specifically focusing on sharing, cooperation, and honesty. We explored whether participants behaved differently when their self-reported gender matched the grammatical gender used in the experimental instructions. Overall, we find no strong evidence that a match between the participant’s self-reported gender and the norm formulation led to a higher increase in norm compliance compared to the differences in a mismatch or gender-inclusive frame. The results show that the framing of instructions had the strongest impact on sharing behavior, particularly among male participants, where a match between the participant’s gender and the instructions’ gender frame led to a higher increase in norm compliance compared to gender-inclusive formulations. In contrast, we found only mild or no significant differences in cooperation and honesty across treatments. Our findings help to shed light on the question if and how gender in language and norm salience shape behavior. These insights are important for organizations and in administrative contexts where we observe an ongoing debate about the usage of gender-fair language.

In this paper, we experimentally investigate the role of metacognitive sensitivity – the ability to distinguish between accurate and inaccurate performance – in economic decision-making. While existing literature has extensively examined overconfidence and its detrimental effects on financial markets, entrepreneurship, and career choices, the economic implications of metacognitive sensitivity have been largely overlooked. However, in various contexts, a lack of sensitivity can be just as detrimental as overconfidence, as it impairs individuals’ ability to accurately assess their abilities. Additionally, we introduce the concept of meta-metacognitive beliefs – individuals’ judgments about the quality of their own metacognition – and explore their influence on behavior. Using an experimental design where participants perform a task and can seek information about their performance before choosing between a competitive and non-competitive compensation scheme, we assess the impact of metacognitive sensitivity and meta-metacognitive beliefs on decision-making. Our findings suggest that metacognitive sensitivity significantly improves the quality of compensation scheme decisions, while individuals with low meta-metacognitive confidence are more likely to seek external feedback before making such decisions. Overall, this highlights the importance of considering the complex nature of individuals’ beliefs about their abilities to better understand economic inefficiencies and ultimately design interventions to prevent them.