Ingratiation and Favoritism : Experimental Evidence
AbstractWe provide experimental evidence of workers’ ingratiation by opinion conformity and of managers’ discrimination in favor of workers with whom they share similar opinions. In our Baseline, managers can observe both workers’ performance at a task and opinions before assigning unequal payoffs. In the Ingratiation treatment, workers can change their opinion after learning that held by the manager. In the Random treatment, workers can also change opinion but payoffs are assigned randomly, which gives a measure of non-strategic opinion conformism. We find evidence of high ingratiation indices, as overall, ingratiation is effective. Indeed, managers reward opinion conformity, and even more so when opinions cannot be manipulated. Additional treatments reveal that ingratiation is cost sensitive and that the introduction of performance pay for managers as well as a less noisy measure of performance increase the role of relative performance in the assignment of payoffs, without eliminating the reward of opinion conformity.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique (GATE), Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), Université Lyon 2, Ecole Normale Supérieure in its series Working Papers with number 1207.
Date of creation: 2012
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: 93, chemin des Mouilles - B.P.167 69131 - Ecully cedex
Phone: 33(0)472 29 30 89
Fax: 33(0)47229 30 90
Web page: http://www.gate.cnrs.fr/
More information through EDIRC
Ingratiation; opinion conformity; favoritism; discrimination; social distance; experiment;
Other versions of this item:
- Stéphane Robin & Agnieszka Rusinowska & Marie-Claire Villeval, 2012. "Ingratiation and Favoritism : Experimental Evidence," UniversitÃ© Paris1 PanthÃ©on-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00706791, HAL.
- Stéphane Robin & Agnieszka Rusinowska & Marie-Claire Villeval, 2012. "Ingratiation and Favoritism: Experimental Evidence," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 12032, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
- Robin, Stéphane & Rusinowska, Agnieszka & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2012. "Ingratiation and Favoritism: Experimental Evidence," IZA Discussion Papers 6530, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Stéphane Robin & Agnieszka Rusinowska & Marie-Claire Villeval, 2012. "Ingratiation and Favoritism: Experimental Evidence," UniversitÃ© Paris1 PanthÃ©on-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00694160, HAL.
- C7 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory
- C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
- D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Economics; Underlying Principles
- D86 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Economics of Contract Law
- M51 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting - - Personnel Economics - - - Firm Employment Decisions; Promotions
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2012-05-15 (All new papers)
- NEP-CBE-2012-05-15 (Cognitive & Behavioural Economics)
- NEP-EXP-2012-05-15 (Experimental Economics)
- NEP-GTH-2012-05-15 (Game Theory)
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Nelly Wirth).
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.