IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_10822.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Who Is in Favor of Affirmative Action? Representative Evidence from an Experiment and a Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Sabrina Herzog
  • Hannah Schildberg-Hörisch
  • Chi Trieu
  • Jana Willrodt

Abstract

Although affirmative action remains controversial, little is known about who supports or opposes it and why. This paper investigates preferences for affirmative action by combining causal evidence from an experiment on the role of self-serving motives and in-group favoritism with survey data on three different affirmative action policies. Our results rely on a population-representative sample from the US. We find that support for affirmative action is based both on self-serving motives and principled grounds (e.g., related to an individual’s altruism, fairness perceptions, concerns for efficiency, and political views). By contrast, in-group favouritism and socio-demographic characteristics play a much smaller role.

Suggested Citation

  • Sabrina Herzog & Hannah Schildberg-Hörisch & Chi Trieu & Jana Willrodt, 2023. "Who Is in Favor of Affirmative Action? Representative Evidence from an Experiment and a Survey," CESifo Working Paper Series 10822, CESifo.
    • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_10822
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp10822.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jonas Radbruch & Amelie Schiprowski, 2023. "Committee Deliberation and Gender Differences in Influence," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2023_430, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    2. Alesina, Alberto & La Ferrara, Eliana, 2005. "Preferences for redistribution in the land of opportunities," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(5-6), pages 897-931, June.
    3. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    4. Fallucchi, Francesco & Quercia, Simone, 2018. "Affirmative action and retaliation in experimental contests," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 23-40.
    5. Elvire Guillaud, 2013. "Preferences for redistribution: an empirical analysis over 33 countries," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 11(1), pages 57-78, March.
    6. Bursztyn, Leonardo & Cappelen, Alexander & Tungodden, Bertil & Voena, Alessandra & Yanagizawa-Drott, David, 2023. "How Are Gender Norms Perceived?," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 5/2023, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    7. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2023. "The Preference Survey Module: A Validated Instrument for Measuring Risk, Time, and Social Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(4), pages 1935-1950, April.
    8. Roel van Veldhuizen, 2022. "Gender Differences in Tournament Choices: Risk Preferences, Overconfidence, or Competitiveness?," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 20(4), pages 1595-1618.
    9. Ruben Durante & Louis Putterman & Joël Weele, 2014. "Preferences For Redistribution And Perception Of Fairness: An Experimental Study," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 1059-1086, August.
    10. Marcela Ibanez & Gerhard Riener, 2018. "Sorting through Affirmative Action: Three Field Experiments in Colombia," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 36(2), pages 437-478.
    11. Francesca Refsum Jensenius, 2015. "Development from Representation? A Study of Quotas for the Scheduled Castes in India," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(3), pages 196-220, July.
    12. Fehr, Dietmar & Vollmann, Martin, 2020. "Misperceiving Economic Success: Experimental Evidence on Meritocratic Beliefs and Inequality Acceptance," Working Papers 0695, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    13. Edwin Ip & Andreas Leibbrandt & Joseph Vecci, 2020. "How Do Gender Quotas Affect Workplace Relationships? Complementary Evidence from a Representative Survey and Labor Market Experiments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(2), pages 805-822, February.
    14. van Veldhuizen, Roel, 2022. "Gender Differences in Tournament Choices: Risk Preferences, Overconfidence or Competitiveness?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 20(4), pages 1595-1618.
    15. Grimalda, Gianluca & Farina, Francesco & Conte, Anna & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2023. "Why do preferences for redistribution differ across countries? An experimental analysis," Kiel Working Papers 2230, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), revised 2023.
    16. Timothy Besley & Olle Folke & Torsten Persson & Johanna Rickne, 2017. "Gender Quotas and the Crisis of the Mediocre Man: Theory and Evidence from Sweden," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(8), pages 2204-2242, August.
    17. Calsamiglia, Caterina & Franke, Jörg & Rey-Biel, Pedro, 2013. "The incentive effects of affirmative action in a real-effort tournament," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 15-31.
    18. Katarzyna Burzynska & Gabriela Contreras, 2020. "Affirmative action programs and network benefits in the number of board positions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-26, August.
    19. Surendrakumar Bagde & Dennis Epple & Lowell Taylor, 2016. "Does Affirmative Action Work? Caste, Gender, College Quality, and Academic Success in India," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(6), pages 1495-1521, June.
    20. Tomomi Tanaka & Colin F. Camerer, 2016. "Trait perceptions influence economic out-group bias: lab and field evidence from Vietnam," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(3), pages 513-534, September.
    21. Nisvan Erkal & Lata Gangadharan & Nikos Nikiforakis, 2011. "Relative Earnings and Giving in a Real-Effort Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(7), pages 3330-3348, December.
    22. Beaurain, Guillaume & Masclet, David, 2016. "Does affirmative action reduce gender discrimination and enhance efficiency? New experimental evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 350-362.
    23. Francesco Fallucchi & Simone Quercia, 2016. "Affirmative action and retaliation in experimental contests," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 16-03, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    24. Petters, Lea M. & Schröder, Marina, 2020. "Negative side effects of affirmative action: How quotas lead to distortions in performance evaluation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    25. Benndorf, Volker & Rau, Holger A. & Sölch, Christian, 2019. "Minimizing learning in repeated real-effort tasks," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 239-248.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Herzog, Sabrina & Schildberg-Hörisch, Hannah & Trieu, Chi & Willrodt, Jana, 2023. "Who is in favor of affirmative action? Representative evidence from an experiment and a survey," DICE Discussion Papers 409, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    2. Hannah Schildberg-Hörisch & Marco A Schwarz & Chi Trieu & Jana Willrodt, 2023. "Perceived Fairness and Consequences of Affirmative Action Policies," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 133(656), pages 3099-3135.
    3. Schildberg-Hörisch, Hannah & Trieu, Chi & Willrodt, Jana, 2020. "Perceived Fairness and Consequences of Affirmative Action Policies," IZA Discussion Papers 13202, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Trieu, Chi, 2023. "Who's who: How uncertainty about the favored group effects outcomes of affirmative action," DICE Discussion Papers 405, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    5. Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Patricia Esteve‐González & Anwesha Mukherjee, 2023. "Heterogeneity, leveling the playing field, and affirmative action in contests," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 89(3), pages 924-974, January.
    6. Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Anastasia Danilov & Martin G. Kocher, 2023. "The Lifecycle of Affirmative Action Policies and Its Effect on Effort and Sabotage Behavior," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 401, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    7. José J. Domínguez & Natalia Montinari, 2021. "Gender Quotas and Task Assignment in Organizations," ThE Papers 21/13, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    8. Maite D. Laméris & Richard Jong-A-Pin & Rasmus Wiese, 2018. "An Experimental Test of the Validity of Survey-Measured Political Ideology," CESifo Working Paper Series 7139, CESifo.
    9. Preuss, Marcel & Reyes, Germán & Somerville, Jason & Wu, Joy, 2022. "Inequality of Opportunity and Income Redistribution," VfS Annual Conference 2022 (Basel): Big Data in Economics 264138, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    10. Boneva, Teodora & Buser, Thomas & Falk, Armin & Kosse, Fabian, 2021. "The Origins of Gender Differences in Competitiveness and Earnings Expectations: Causal Evidence from a Mentoring Intervention," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 295, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    11. Marcel Preuss & Germ'an Reyes & Jason Somerville & Joy Wu, 2022. "Inequality of Opportunity and Income Redistribution," Papers 2209.00534, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2024.
    12. Harald Lang & Florian Morath, 2015. "A Glance into the Tunnel: Experimental Evidence on Income Comparisons under Uncertainty," Working Papers tax-mpg-rps-2015-13, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.
    13. Ji‐Hung Choi & Hannah Oh & John Bae & Sang‐Joon Kim, 2021. "Affirmative action and team performance: An agency theoretic perspective," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(5), pages 1183-1193, July.
    14. Thomas Buser & Hessel Oosterbeek, "undated". "The anatomy of competitiveness," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 23-031/I, Tinbergen Institute.
    15. Gärtner, Manja & Mollerstrom, Johanna & Seim, David, 2017. "Individual risk preferences and the demand for redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 49-55.
    16. Piasenti, Stefano & Valente, Marica & van Veldhuizen, Roel & Pfeifer, Gregor, 2023. "Does Unfairness Hurt Women? The Effects of Losing Unfair Competitions," IZA Discussion Papers 16324, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. JaeYoul Shin, 2018. "Relative Deprivation, Satisfying Rationality, and Support for Redistribution," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 35-56, November.
    18. Laméris, Maite D. & Garretsen, Harry & Jong-A-Pin, Richard, 2020. "Political ideology and the intragenerational prospect of upward mobility," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    19. Sabyasachi Das & Abhiroop Mukhopadhyay & Rajas Saroy, 2018. "Does Affirmative Action in Politics Hinder Performance? Evidence from India," Working Papers 1007, Ashoka University, Department of Economics.
    20. Victoire Girard, 2021. "Stabbed in the back? Mandated political representation and murders," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(4), pages 595-634, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    support for affirmative action; self-serving motives; in-group favoritism; altruism; efficiency; fairness; discrimination;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C99 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Other
    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • J78 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor Discrimination - - - Public Policy (including comparable worth)

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_10822. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.