scispace - formally typeset
Open AccessPosted Content

Discrimination as favoritism: The private benefits and social costs of in-group favoritism in an experimental labor market

Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
In this paper, the authors examine labor market favoritism in a unique laboratory experiment design that can shed light on both the private benefits and spillover costs of employer favoritism (or discrimination) and identify one potential micro-foundation of societal unrest that may link back to labor market opportunity.
Abstract
In this paper, we examine labor market favoritism in a unique laboratory experiment design that can shed light on both the private benefits and spillover costs of employer favoritism (or discrimination). Group identity is induced on subjects such that each laboratory « society » consists of eight individuals each belonging to one of two different identity groups. In some treatments randomly assigned employer-subjects give preference rankings of potential worker-subjects who would make effort choices that impact employer payoffs. Though it is common knowledge that group identity in this environment provides no special productivity information and cannot facilitate communication or otherwise lower costs for the employer, employers preferentially rank in-group members. In such instances, the unemployed workers are aware that an intentional preference ranking resulted in their unemployment. Unemployed workers are allowed to destroy resources in a final stage of the game, which is a simple measure of the spillover effects of favoritism in our design. Though we find evidence that favoritism may privately benefit a firm in terms of higher worker effort, the spillover costs that result highlight a reason to combat favoritism/discrimination. This result also identifies one potential micro-foundation of societal unrest that may link back to labor market opportunity. Key Words: Discrimination, Experimental Economics, Social identity, Conflicts

read more

Citations
More filters
Posted Content

Implementing (Un)fair Procedures? Favoritism and Process Fairness when Inequality is Inevitable

TL;DR: It is shown that allocators may be influenced by inappropriate criteria, impeding the implementation of a fair process, and four interventions to induce process fairness without restricting the allocator’s decisions are studied.
Journal ArticleDOI

Does cronyism pay? Costly ingroup favoritism in the lab

TL;DR: In this paper , two main motives underlie cronyism: profit, if an ingroup employee works harder, or altruism, if used to transfer resources, and both motives play a role.
Journal ArticleDOI

Unequal Treatment in the Rental Housing Markets of Four Chinese Megacities

TL;DR: In this article , the authors investigate whether there is unequal treatment in rental housing markets in the four megacities Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen, and conclude that the unequal treatment of different ethnic groups may pose an important future challenge to housing market regulation in urban China.
Journal ArticleDOI

Antisocial behavior in experiments: what have we learned from the past two decades?

TL;DR: In this paper , the authors focus on payoff-destruction experiments conducted over the last two decades and synthesize the findings, finding 46 studies where they found inequity reduction and pure spite as the main motives for such behavior.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments

TL;DR: Z-Tree as mentioned in this paper is a toolbox for ready-made economic experiments, which allows programming almost any kind of experiments in a short time and is stable and easy to use.
Journal ArticleDOI

A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation

TL;DR: This article showed that if a fraction of the people exhibit inequality aversion, stable cooperation is maintained although punishment is costly for those who punish, and they also showed that when they are given the opportunity to punish free riders, stable cooperations are maintained.
Journal ArticleDOI

ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition

TL;DR: The authors demonstrate that people are motivated by both their pecuniary payoff and their relative payoff standing, and demonstrate that a simple model, constructed on the premise that people were motivated by either their payoff or their relative standing, organizes a large and seemingly disparate set of laboratory observations as one consistent pattern, which explains observations from games where equity is thought to be a factor, such as ultimatum and dictator, games where reciprocity is played a role and games where competitive behavior is observed.
Posted Content

Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics

TL;DR: In this article, it is shown that every mutual-max or mutual-min Nash equilibrium is a fairness equilibrium, and that if payoffs are small, fairness equilibria are roughly the set of mutualmax and mutualmin outcomes; if payoff are large, fairness equilibrium are roughly a set of Nash equilibra.
Journal ArticleDOI

Social categorization and intergroup behaviour

TL;DR: In the second series of experiments, it was found that the maximum joint profit independent of group membership did not affect significantly the manner in which the subjects divided real pecuniary rewards; however, maximum profit for own group did affect the distribution of rewards; and the clearest effect on the subject's attempt to achieve a maximum difference between the ingroup and the outgroup even at the price of sacrificing other "objective" advantages.
Related Papers (5)