Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T11:15:38.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who’s who: how uncertainty about the favored group affects outcomes of affirmative action

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Chi Trieu Open the ORCID record for Chi Trieu [Opens in a new window]
Chi Trieu*
Affiliation:
Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE) and Compass Lexecon, Kö-Bogen, Königsallee 2b, 40212 Düsseldorf, Germany
*
e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When affirmative action policies target more than one disadvantaged group, they contain uncertainty as to whether an individual who belongs to one of these groups was actually favored. In a laboratory experiment, we study how this feature affects outcomes of affirmative action in the form of quotas, and compare it with two other conditions, namely affirmative action with a certain favored group and no affirmative action. We find that when a group is favored with certainty and the social identity that triggers affirmative action is made salient, affirmed individuals are wrongly perceived as less competent, both by themselves and by others. Consequently, their willingness to compete does not increase and they are selected less for teamwork post competition. Affirmative action with uncertain favored groups does not distort belief in competence, and thus does not induce such unintended consequences. In contrast, it increases competition entry of the affirmed groups and enhances their chances of being selected for teamwork.

Keywords

Affirmative actionCompetitionUncertaintyIdentityExperiment

JEL classification

J71: Discrimination D02: Institutions: Design, Formation, Operations, and Impact C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior
Type
Original Paper
Information
Journal of the Economic Science Association , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , December 2023 , pp. 252 - 292
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Economic Science Association 2023.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abeler, J., Falk, A., Goette, L., Huffman, D. (2011). Reference points and effort provision. American Economic Review, 101(2), 470–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahern, K., Dittmar, A. K. (2012). The changing of the boards: The impact on firm valuation of mandated female board representation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(1), 137–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almås, I., Cappelen, A., Salvanes, K. G., Sørensen, E., Tungodden, B. (2016). Willingness to compete: Family matters. Management Science, 62(8), 2149–2162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Araujo, F. A., Carbone, E., Conell-Price, L., Dunietz, M. W., Jaroszewicz, A., Landsman, R., Lamé, D., Vesterlund, L., Wang, S. W., Wilson, A. J. (2016). The slider task: An example of restricted inference on incentive effects. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 2(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arcidiacono, P., Lovenheim, M. (2016). Affirmative action and the quality-fit trade-off. Journal of Economic Literature, 54(1), 3–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagde, S., Epple, D., Taylor, L. (2016). Does affirmative action work? Caste, gender, college quality, and academic success in India. American Economic Review, 106(6), 1495–1521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balafoutas, L., Davis, B. J., Sutter, M. (2016). Affirmative action or just discrimination? A study on the endogenous emergence of quotas. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 127, 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balafoutas, L., Sutter, M. (2012). Affirmative action policies promote women and do not harm efficiency in the laboratory. Science, 335(6068), 579–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balafoutas, L., Sutter, M. (2019). How uncertainty and ambiguity in tournaments affect gender differences in competitive behavior. European Economic Review, 118(C), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, R., Gupta, N. D., Villeval, M. C. (2018). The spillover effects of affirmative action on competitiveness and unethical behavior. European Economic Review, 101(C), 567–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, R., Gupta, N. D., Villeval, M. C. (2020). Feedback spillovers across tasks, self-confidence and competitiveness. Games and Economic Behavior, 123, 127–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaman, L., Chattopadhyay, R., Duflo, E., Pande, R., Topalova, P. (2009). Powerful women: Does exposure reduce bias? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(4), 1497–1540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaurain, G., Masclet, D. (2016). Does affirmative action reduce gender discrimination and enhance efficiency? New experimental evidence. European Economic Review, 90, 350–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertrand, M., Black, S. E., Jensen, S., Lleras-Muney, A. (2018). Breaking the glass ceiling? The effect of board quotas on female labour market outcomes in Norway. The Review of Economic Studies, 86(1), 191–239.Google Scholar
Calsamiglia, C., Franke, J., Rey-Biel, P. (2013). The incentive effects of affirmative action in a real-effort tournament. Journal of Public Economics, 98, 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chattopadhyay, R., Duflo, E. (2004). Women as policy makers: Evidence from a randomized policy experiment in India. Econometrica, 72(5), 1409–1443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Z., Ong, D., & Sheremeta, R. (2015). Competition between and within universities: Theoretical and experimental investigation of group identity and the desire to win. MPRA working paper no. 67552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chowdhury, S. M., Jeon, J. Y., Ramalingam, A. (2016). Identity and group conflict. European Economic Review, 90, 107–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corgnet, B., Hernán-González, R., Schniter, E. (2015). Why real leisure really matters: Incentive effects on real effort in the laboratory. Experimental Economics, 18(2), 284–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornaglia, F., Drouvelis, M., Masella, P. (2019). Competition and the role of group identity. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 162, 136–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of European Union. (2000). Council directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32000L0078.Google Scholar
Croson, R., Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 448–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dargnies, M.-P. (2012). Men too sometimes shy away from competition: the case of team competition. Management Science, 58(11), 1982–2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreber, A., von Essen, E., Ranehill, E. (2011). Outrunning the gender gap—boys and girls compete equally. Experimental Economics, 14(4), 567–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreber, A., von Essen, E., Ranehill, E. (2014). Gender and competition in adolescence: task matters. Experimental Economics, 17(1), 154–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A., Becker, A., Dohmen, T., Enke, B., Huffman, D., Sunde, U. (2018). Global evidence on economic preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(4), 1645–1692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fallucchi, F., Quercia, S. (2018). Affirmative action and retaliation in experimental contests. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 156, 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazette, Federal Law. (2015). Gesetz für die gleichberechtigte Teilhabe von Frauen und Männern an Führungspositionen in der Privatwirtschaft und im öffentlichen Dienst (Law on Equal Participation of Women and Men in Leadership Positions in the Private and Public Sector). Bundesgesetzblatt Jahrgang 2015 Teil I Nr.17 S. 642.Google Scholar
Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gächter, S., Huang, L., Sefton, M. (2016). Combining “real effort” with induced effort costs: The ball-catching task. Experimental Economics, 19(4), 687–712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gee, L. K. (2019). The more you know: Information effects on job application rates in a large field experiment. Management Science, 65(5), 2077–2094.Google Scholar
Gillen, B., Snowberg, E., Yariv, L. (2019). Experimenting with measurement error: Techniques with applications to the Caltech cohort study. Journal of Political Economy, 127(4), 1826–1863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gneezy, U., Niederle, M., Rustichini, A. (2003). Performance in competitive environments: Gender differences*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3), 1049–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goerg, S. J., Kube, S., Radbruch, J. (2019). The effectiveness of incentive schemes in the presence of implicit effort costs. Management Science, 65(9), 3949–4450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greiner, B. (2004). The online recruitment system ORSEE—A guide for the organization of experiments in economics. Papers on strategic interaction, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.Google Scholar
Gupta, N. D., Anders, P., Villeval, M. C. (2013). Gender matching and competitiveness: Experimental evidence. Economic Inquiry, 51(1), 816–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., Lucas, J. A. (1992). Presumed incompetent? Stigmatization and affirmative action efforts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4), 536–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holzer, H., Neumark, D. (2000). Assessing affirmative action. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(3), 483–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, R., Klarsfeld, A., Ng, E., Haq, R. (2012). Introduction: Social regulation of diversity and equality. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 18(4), 279–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibanez, M., Riener, G. (2018). Sorting through affirmative action: Three field experiments in Colombia. Journal of Labor Economics, 36(2), 437–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ifcher, J., Zarghamee, H. (2016). Do gender-variant preferences for competition persist in the absence of performance? Economic Inquiry, 54(4), 1918–1930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ip, E., Leibbrandt, A., Vecci, J. (2020). How do gender quotas affect workplace relationships? Complementary evidence from a representative survey and labor market experiments. Management Science, 66(2), 503–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iriberri, N., Rey-Biel, P. (2019). Competitive pressure widens the gender gap in performance: Evidence from a two-stage competition in mathematics. Economic Journal, 129(620), 1863–1893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensenius, F. R. (2015). Development from representation? A study of quotas for the scheduled castes in India. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 7(3), 196–220.Google Scholar
Kato, T., Shu, P. (2016). Competition and social identity in the workplace: Evidence from a Chinese textile firm. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 131(Part A), 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kölle, F. (2017). Affirmative action, cooperation, and the willingness to work in teams. Journal of Economic Psychology, 62, 50–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, T. (2016). Discrimination in the laboratory: A meta-analysis of economics experiments. European Economic Review, 90, 375–402 Social identity and discrimination.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibbrandt, A., & List, J. A. (2018). Do equal employment opportunity statements backfire? Evidence from a natural field experiment on job-entry decisions. NBER working paper (25035).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibbrandt, A., Wang, L. C., Foo, C. (2017). Gender quotas, competitions, and peer review: Experimental evidence on the backlash against women. Management Science, 64(8), 3501–3516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, K., List, J., Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in competition: Evidence from a matrilineal and a patriarchal society. Econometrica, 77, 1637–1664.Google Scholar
Maggian, V., Montinari, N. (2017). The spillover effects of gender quotas on dishonesty. Economics Letters, 159(C), 33–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsa, D. A., Miller, A. R. (2013). A female style in corporate leadership? Evidence from quotas. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5(3), 136–169.Google Scholar
Mollerstrom, J. (2022). Favoritism and cooperation. Public Choice, 191, 293–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niederle, M., Segal, C., Vesterlund, L. (2013). How costly is diversity? Affirmative action in light of gender differences in competitiveness. Management Science, 59(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niederle, M., Vesterlund, L. (2007). Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1067–1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niederle, M., Vesterlund, L. (2011). Gender and competition. Annual Review of Economics, 3(1), 601–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pande, R. (2003). Can mandated political representation increase policy influence for disadvantaged minorities? Theory and evidence from India. American Economic Review, 93(4), 1132–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petters, L., Schroeder, M. (2020). Negative side effects of affirmative action: How quotas lead to distortions in performance evaluation. European Economic Review, 130, 103500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schildberg-Hörisch, H., Schwarz, M., Trieu, C., Willrodt, J. (2023). Perceived fairness and consequences of affirmative action policies. Economic Journal, 2023, 1.Google Scholar
Schotter, A., Weigelt, K. (1992). Asymmetric tournaments, equal opportunity laws, and affirmative action: Some experimental results. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(2), 511–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SGB IX – German Social Code, Volume 9. (2001). § 154 SGB IX Pflicht der Arbeitgeber zur Beschäftigung schwerbehinderter Menschen (Employers’ duty of employing people with disabilities). https://www.sozialgesetzbuch-sgb.de/sgbix/154.html. Accessed May 22, 2020.Google Scholar
Sowell, T. (2004). Affirmative action around the world: An empirical study, Yale UniversityPress.Google Scholar
Sutter, M., Glätzle-Rützler, D. (2015). Gender differences in the willingness to compete emerge early in life and persist. Management Science, 61(10), 2339–23354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutter, M., Zoller, C., Glätzle-Rützler, D. (2019). Economic behavior of children and adolescents—A first survey of experimental economics results. European Economic Review, 111(C), 98–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, G. G., Frick, J. R., & Schupp, J. (2007). The German socio-economic panel study (SOEP)—Evolution, scope and enhancements. SOEP papers on multidisciplinary panel data research, no. 1.Google Scholar