IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eecrev/v90y2016icp375-402.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Discrimination in the laboratory: A meta-analysis of economics experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Lane, Tom

Abstract

Economists are increasingly using experiments to study and measure discrimination between groups. In a meta-analysis containing 441 results from 77 studies, we find groups significantly discriminate against each other in roughly a third of cases. Discrimination varies depending upon the type of group identity being studied: it is stronger when identity is artificially induced in the laboratory than when the subject pool is divided by ethnicity or nationality, and higher still when participants are split into socially or geographically distinct groups. In gender discrimination experiments, there is significant favouritism towards the opposite gender. There is evidence for both taste-based and statistical discrimination; tastes drive the general pattern of discrimination against out-groups, but statistical beliefs are found to affect discrimination in specific instances. Relative to all other decision-making contexts, discrimination is much stronger when participants are asked to allocate payoffs between passive in-group and out-group members. Students and non-students appear to discriminate equally. We discuss possible interpretations and implications of our findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Lane, Tom, 2016. "Discrimination in the laboratory: A meta-analysis of economics experiments," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 375-402.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:eecrev:v:90:y:2016:i:c:p:375-402
    DOI: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2015.11.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292115001907
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2015.11.011?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bellemare, Charles & Kroger, Sabine, 2007. "On representative social capital," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 183-202, January.
    2. Roger M. Harbord & Julian P.T. Higgins, 2008. "Meta-regression in Stata," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 8(4), pages 493-519, December.
    3. Hopfensitz, Astrid, 2009. "Previous Outcomes and Reference Dependence: A Meta Study of Repeated Investment Tasks with Restricted Feedback," TSE Working Papers 09-087, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    4. Jon Anderson & Stephen Burks & Jeffrey Carpenter & Lorenz Götte & Karsten Maurer & Daniele Nosenzo & Ruth Potter & Kim Rocha & Aldo Rustichini, 2013. "Self-selection and variations in the laboratory measurement of other-regarding preferences across subject pools: evidence from one college student and two adult samples," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(2), pages 170-189, June.
    5. Georg Weizsacker, 2010. "Do We Follow Others When We Should? A Simple Test of Rational Expectations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(5), pages 2340-2360, December.
    6. Falk, Armin & Zehnder, Christian, 2007. "Discrimination and In-Group Favoritism in a Citywide Trust Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 2765, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Johnson, Noel D. & Mislin, Alexandra A., 2011. "Trust games: A meta-analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 865-889.
    8. Christoph Engel, 2011. "Dictator games: a meta study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(4), pages 583-610, November.
    9. Daniel Zizzo, 2010. "Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(1), pages 75-98, March.
    10. Marco Percoco & Peter Nijkamp, 2009. "Estimating individual rates of discount: a meta-analysis," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(12), pages 1235-1239.
    11. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2007:i:68:p:1-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Hopfensitz, Astrid, 2009. "Previous outcomes and reference dependence: A meta study of repeated investment tasks with and without restricted feedback," MPRA Paper 16096, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Tyler Prante & Robert P. Berrens & Jennifer A. Thacher, 2007. "Evaluating coasean bargaining experiments with meta-analysis," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(68), pages 1-7.
    14. Jones, Garett, 2008. "Are smarter groups more cooperative? Evidence from prisoner's dilemma experiments, 1959-2003," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(3-4), pages 489-497, December.
    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. Tom Lane, 2015. "Discrimination in the laboratory: a meta-analysis," Discussion Papers 2015-03, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    2. Christoph Engel, 2011. "Dictator games: a meta study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(4), pages 583-610, November.
    3. Frigau, Luca & Medda, Tiziana & Pelligra, Vittorio, 2019. "From the field to the lab. An experiment on the representativeness of standard laboratory subjects," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 160-169.
    4. Jan Stoop, 2014. "From the lab to the field: envelopes, dictators and manners," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(2), pages 304-313, June.
    5. Tiziana Medda & Vittorio Pelligra & Tommaso Reggiani, 2016. "Does Experience Affect Fairness and Reciprocity in Lab Experiments?," CERBE Working Papers wpC09, CERBE Center for Relationship Banking and Economics.
    6. V. Pelligra & T. Reggiani & T. Medda, 2016. "Does Experience Affect Fairness, Reciprocity and Cooperation in Lab Experiments?," Working Paper CRENoS 201610, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    7. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    8. Tiziana Medda & Vittorio Pelligra & Tommaso Reggiani, 2021. "Lab-Sophistication: Does Repeated Participation in Laboratory Experiments Affect Pro-Social Behaviour?," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-14, February.
    9. Le Zhang & Andreas Ortmann, 2012. "A reproduction and replication of Engel’s meta-study of dictator game experiments," Discussion Papers 2012-44, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    10. Nicolas Vallois & Dorian Jullien, 2017. "Replication in experimental economics: A historical and quantitative approach focused on public good game experiments," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-01651080, HAL.
    11. Isabel Thielmann & Daniel W. Heck & Benjamin E. Hilbig, 2016. "Anonymity and incentives: An investigation of techniques to reduce socially desirable responding in the Trust Game," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(5), pages 527-536, September.
    12. Shaun P. Hargreaves Heap & Eugenio Levi & Abhijit Ramalingam, 2021. "Group identification and giving: in-group love, out-group hate and their crowding out," MUNI ECON Working Papers 2021-07, Masaryk University.
    13. Francesco Bogliacino & Laura Jiménez Lozano & Daniel Reyes, 2018. "Socioeconomic stratification and stereotyping: lab-in-the-field evidence from Colombia," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 65(1), pages 77-118, March.
    14. Nicolas Vallois & Dorian Jullien, 2017. "Replication in experimental economics: A historical and quantitative approach focused on public good game experiments," Working Papers halshs-01651080, HAL.
    15. Shaun P. Hargreaves Heap & Aikaterini Karadimitropoulou & Eugenio Levi, 2021. "Narrative based information: is it the facts or their packaging that matters?," MUNI ECON Working Papers 2021-08, Masaryk University.
    16. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Jaume García-Segarra & Alexander Ritschel, 2018. "The Big Robber Game," ECON - Working Papers 291, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    17. Gruener, Sven & Lehberger, Mira & Hirschauer, Norbert & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2021. "How (un-)informative are experiments with “standard subjects” for other social groups? – The case of agricultural students and farmers," SocArXiv psda5, Center for Open Science.
    18. Mercer, Antonio Carlos & Póvoa, Angela Cristiane Santos & Pech, Wesley, 2021. "The effect of luck framing on distributional preferences," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(4), pages 320-329.
    19. Nicolas Vallois & Dorian Jullien, 2017. "Replication in Experimental Economics: A Historical and Quantitative Approach Focused on Public Good Game Experiments," GREDEG Working Papers 2017-21, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    20. Iñigo Iturbe-Ormaetxe & Giovanni Ponti & Josefa Tomás, 2016. "Myopic Loss Aversion under Ambiguity and Gender Effects," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-11, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Discrimination; Meta-analysis;

    JEL classification:

    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles

    Lists

    This item is featured on the following reading lists, Wikipedia, or ReplicationWiki pages:
    1. Meta-Analysis in Economics

    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:eee:eecrev:v:90:y:2016:i:c:p:375-402. See general 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: . General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eer .

    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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eer .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.