IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v22y2011i3p541-553.html

The Ratings Game: Asymmetry in Classification

Author

Listed:
  • David M. Waguespack

    (Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742)

  • Olav Sorenson

    (Yale School of Management, New Haven, Connecticut 06520)

Abstract

Categorization processes are generally treated as consistent mappings of the underlying characteristics that they group. Yet, in many cases, the identities of actors influence these processes. When identity matters, high-status actors often obtain more favorable classifications. We examine these processes in the context of the Motion Picture Association of America's parental guidance classifications of movies (G, PG, R, NC-17). We find that, conditional on a given level of content, films distributed by the Association's members and those that involve more central producers and directors receive more lenient classifications than those carried by independent distributors and involving more peripheral personnel. Conversely, and again conditional on content, films involving directors with a history of producing R-rated features receive more restrictive ratings. We discuss the mechanisms that might account for these effects. Regardless of the mechanism, however, because ratings influence revenue and consequently profitability, the movie certification system in the United States places independent distributors and peripheral individuals at a disadvantage, relative to their larger and more central rivals.

Suggested Citation

  • David M. Waguespack & Olav Sorenson, 2011. "The Ratings Game: Asymmetry in Classification," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 541-553, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:22:y:2011:i:3:p:541-553
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0533
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0533
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.1100.0533?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. Michaely, Roni & Womack, Kent L, 1999. "Conflict of Interest and the Credibility of Underwriter Analyst Recommendations," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 12(4), pages 653-686.
    2. Cecilia Rouse & Claudia Goldin, 2000. "Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of "Blind" Auditions on Female Musicians," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 715-741, September.
    3. Zuckerman, Ezra W. & Kim, Tai-Young & Ukanwa, Kalinda & James, von Rittmann, 2003. "Robust Identities or Non-Entities? Typecasting in the Feature Film Labor Market," Working papers 4291-02, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    4. Blank, Rebecca M, 1991. "The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1041-1067, December.
    5. Greta Hsu, 2006. "Evaluative schemas and the attention of critics in the US film industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 15(3), pages 467-496, June.
    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. Hinnerich, Björn Tyrefors & Höglin, Erik & Johannesson, Magnus, 2011. "Ethnic Discrimination in High School Grading: Evidence from a Field Experiment," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 733, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 27 Jun 2011.
    2. Leung, Ming D., 2017. "Taking a Pass: How Proportional Prejudice and Decisions Not to Hire Reproduce Sex Segregation," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt9f2420wj, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    3. Vollaard, Ben & van Ours, Jan C., 2022. "Bias in expert product reviews," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 105-118.
    4. Lavy, Victor & Sand, Edith, 2018. "On the origins of gender gaps in human capital: Short- and long-term consequences of teachers' biases," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 263-279.
    5. Fredrik Carlsson & Åsa Löfgren & Thomas Sterner, 2012. "Discrimination in Scientific Review: A Natural Field Experiment on Blind versus Non‐Blind Reviews," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 114(2), pages 500-519, June.
    6. Thomas Breda & Son Thierry Ly, 2012. "Do Professors Really Perpetuate the Gender Gap in Science? Evidence from a Natural Experiment in a French Higher Education Institution," CEE Discussion Papers 0138, Centre for the Economics of Education, LSE.
    7. Bjorn Tyrefors Hinnerich & Erik H�glin & Magnus Johannesson, 2015. "Discrimination against students with foreign backgrounds: evidence from grading in Swedish public high schools," Education Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(6), pages 660-676, December.
    8. Haruka Uchida, 2023. "What Do Blind Evaluations Reveal? How Discrimination Shapes Representation and Quality," Artefactual Field Experiments 00728, The Field Experiments Website.
    9. Chaim Fershtman & Uri Gneezy & Frank Verboven, 2005. "Discrimination and Nepotism: The Efficiency of the Anonymity Rule," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(2), pages 371-396, June.
    10. Greta Hsu & Peter W. Roberts & Anand Swaminathan, 2012. "Evaluative Schemas and the Mediating Role of Critics," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 83-97, February.
    11. Victor Lavy & Rigissa Megalokonomou, 2019. "Persistency in Teachers’ Grading Bias and Effects on Longer-Term Outcomes: University Admissions Exams and Choice of Field of Study," NBER Working Papers 26021, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Lavy, Victor & Sand, Edith, "undated". "On The Origins of Gender Human Capital Gaps: Short and Long Term Consequences of Teachers’ Stereotypical Biases," Economic Research Papers 270009, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    13. Wijnberg, Nachoem M., 2011. "Classification systems and selection systems: The risks of radical innovation and category spanning," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 297-306, September.
    14. Maya Bar-Hillel & Alon Maharshak & Avital Moshinsky & Ruth Nofech, 2012. "A rose by any other name: A social-cognitive perspective on poets and poetry," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(2), pages 149-164, March.
    15. Ruzzier, Christian A. & Woo, Marcelo D., 2023. "Discrimination with inaccurate beliefs and confirmation bias," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 379-390.
    16. Hamermesh, Daniel S., 2006. "Changing looks and changing "discrimination": The beauty of economists," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 93(3), pages 405-412, December.
    17. Terrier, Camille, 2020. "Boys lag behind: How teachers’ gender biases affect student achievement," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    18. Victor Lavy, 2004. "Do Gender Stereotypes Reduce Girls' Human Capital Outcomes? Evidence from a Natural Experiment," NBER Working Papers 10678, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Dougherty, Shaun M. & Goodman, Joshua S. & Hill, Darryl V. & Litke, Erica G. & Page, Lindsay C., 2017. "Objective course placement and college readiness: Evidence from targeted middle school math acceleration," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 141-161.
    20. Nina Granqvist & Stine Grodal & Jennifer L. Woolley, 2013. "Hedging Your Bets: Explaining Executives' Market Labeling Strategies in Nanotechnology," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 395-413, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:inm:ororsc:v:22:y:2011:i:3:p:541-553. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.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.