IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v103y2022i4p883-891.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How do racial stereotypes affect social preferences? An experimental investigation

Author

Listed:
  • Angela Cristiane Santos Póvoa
  • Andressa Margareth Assaka,
  • Wesley Pech

Abstract

Objective We analyzed how racial stereotypes in Brazil affect monetary allocations in bargaining and distribution settings. Methods We conducted an ultimatum game (UG) and a dictator game (DG) in which first movers received information about the race of their counterparts before making allocation decisions. We also implemented a postexperiment questionnaire that asked subjects about the beliefs and motivations that helped them make the decisions. Results Afro‐Brazilians received significantly larger transfers/offers in both games than white Brazilians. The postexperiment survey indicated that the main reason for the increase in pro‐social behavior was the belief that Afro‐Brazilians have, on average, lower levels of income and are more in need of a generous offer/transfer. Conclusion Afro‐Brazilians were perceived by first movers as “people in need of care,” which in turn drove subjects not only to transfer more to them in the DG but also caused first movers to make more generous offers in the UG. The study contributes to the social preferences literature by highlighting how stereotypes about a particular race influence people's decisions in dividing a resource.

Suggested Citation

  • Angela Cristiane Santos Póvoa & Andressa Margareth Assaka, & Wesley Pech, 2022. "How do racial stereotypes affect social preferences? An experimental investigation," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(4), pages 883-891, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:103:y:2022:i:4:p:883-891
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13160
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13160
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.13160?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Güth, Werner & Kocher, Martin G., 2014. "More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 396-409.
    2. Griffin, John & Nickerson, David & Wozniak, Abigail, 2012. "Racial differences in inequality aversion: Evidence from real world respondents in the ultimatum game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 600-617.
    3. Guth, Werner & Schmittberger, Rolf & Schwarze, Bernd, 1982. "An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 367-388, December.
    4. Crawford, Vincent P., 2002. "Introduction to Experimental Game Theory," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 1-15, May.
    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. Larney, Andrea & Rotella, Amanda & Barclay, Pat, 2019. "Stake size effects in ultimatum game and dictator game offers: A meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 61-72.
    2. Werner Güth & Kerstin Pull & Manfred Stadler & Alexandra K. Zaby, 2017. "Blindfolded vs. Informed Ultimatum Bargaining – A Theoretical and Experimental Analysis," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 18(4), pages 444-467, November.
    3. Daniela Di Cagno & Werner Güth & Luca Panaccione & Maria Cristina Scarafile, 2023. "Proposer and responder conceding in impunity bargaining," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(4), pages 722-747, November.
    4. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Debrah Meloso & Luis Miller, 2017. "Strategic risk and response time across games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 46(2), pages 511-523, May.
    5. Giovanni Righetto & Paolo Vanin, 2025. "Political power, conflict and backlash: theory and evidence from Italy," Working Papers wp1213, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    6. Kai A. Konrad & Florian Morath & Wieland Müller, 2014. "Taxation and Market Power," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(1), pages 173-202, February.
    7. Chiara Nardi, 2018. "Play Versus Strategy Method: Behavior and the Role of Emotions in the Ultimatum Game," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 4(1), pages 91-106, March.
    8. Gruner, Sven & Lehberger, Mira & Hirschauer, Norbert & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2022. "How (un)informative are experiments with students for other social groups? A study of agricultural students and farmers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(03), January.
    9. Benslimane, Ismaël & Crosetto, Paolo & Magni-Berton, Raul & Varaine, Simon, 2023. "Intellectual property reform in the laboratory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 204-221.
    10. Sutan, Angela & Vranceanu, Radu, 2016. "Lying about delegation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 29-40.
    11. Konrad, Kai A. & Morath, Florian, 2016. "Bargaining with incomplete information: Evolutionary stability in finite populations," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 118-131.
    12. Qi, Tianxiao & Xu, Bin & Wu, Jinshan & Vriend, Nicolaas J., 2022. "On the Stochasticity of Ultimatum Games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 227-254.
    13. Dar Peleg & Guy Hochman & Timothy Levine & Yechiel Klar & Shahar Ayal, 2021. "Revenge is not blind: Testing the ability of retribution to justify dishonesty," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(6), pages 1525-1548, November.
    14. repec:diw:diwwpp:dp1756 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Gizatulina, Alia & Gorelkina, Olga, 2021. "Selling “Money” on eBay: A field study of surplus division," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 19-38.
    16. Hodaka Morita & Maroš Servátka, 2018. "Investment in Outside Options as Opportunistic Behavior: An Experimental Investigation," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 85(2), pages 457-484, October.
    17. Alexander Lenger & Stephan Wolf & Nils Goldschmidt, 2021. "Choosing inequality: how economic security fosters competitive regimes," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 19(2), pages 315-346, June.
    18. Pedro Rey Biel, 2005. "Equilibrium PLay and Best Response to (Stated) Beliefs in Constant Sum Games," Experimental 0506003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. van Oldeniel, Mark & Peter, Noemi, 2025. "Endogenous cool-off periods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 238(C).
    20. Heike Hennig-Schmidt & Zhuyu Li & Gari Walkowitz, 2024. "Fairness Deliberations and Fair Allocations in Symmetric and Asymmetric Bargaining–An Experimental Study on Group Decisions in Germany and China," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 33(6), pages 1429-1469, December.
    21. Anna Conte & Werner Güth & Paul Pezanis-Christou, 2023. "Strategic ambiguity and risk in alternating pie-sharing experiments," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 66(3), pages 233-260, June.

    More about this item

    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:bla:socsci:v:103:y:2022:i:4:p:883-891. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    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.