Federica Esposito

While there is general agreement on the need for policy intervention to reduce gender inequalities in the labor market, attitudes towards quotas remain highly controversial. When individuals are provided with information about the effectiveness of gender quotas in reducing gender inequalities in top positions, does it affect their attitudes and support? Using a survey experiment conducted among Italian workers and managers (N=2404), our experiment features two distinct information treatments: one highlighting quotas’ ability to address demand-side factors, such as discrimination (demand treatment), and another focusing on supply-side issues, such as underconfidence (supply treatment). We assess how these framings interact with participants' ex-ante beliefs about the magnitude and origins of gender inequalities, including cultural stereotypes, traditional gender norms, differences in abilities, and issues related to work-life balance.Findings reveal a gap between self-reported support for gender quotas and "concrete" behavioral support, measured by willingness to donate to an NGO advocating for quotas. While the information treatments do not significantly influence the likelihood of donating, the amount donated is higher for participants exposed to the supply-side framing. This effect is particularly pronounced among individuals with less specific pre-existing beliefs about the causes of gender inequality. These results highlight the role of targeted information in shaping not only attitudes but also the intensity of behavioral support for gender quotas, offering insights into the mechanisms driving public endorsement of policy interventions.