IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cgr/cgsser/08-01.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Justification as a Key Determinant of the Success of Affirmative Action

Author

Listed:
  • Lea Petters

    (University of Cologne)

  • Marina Schroeder

    (University of Cologne)

Abstract

Quotas are a common but controversial instrument to reduce discrimination. We experimentally analyze the impact of awareness of exisiting discrimination on the effectiveness of quotas. Between treatments, we vary whether or not a quota is implemented and whether or not the affirmed group is discriminated against. We find that quotas lead to a decrease in performance of affirmed individuals. Absent of discrimination, quotas increase sabotage and reduce help received by affirmed individuals. We do not observe these undesirable effects in the presence of discrimination. Thus, perceived justification has a crucial impact on the effect of quota interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Lea Petters & Marina Schroeder, 2017. "Justification as a Key Determinant of the Success of Affirmative Action," Cologne Graduate School Working Paper Series 08-01, Cologne Graduate School in Management, Economics and Social Sciences.
  • Handle: RePEc:cgr:cgsser:08-01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cgs.uni-koeln.de/fileadmin/wiso_fak/cgs/pdf/working_paper/cgswp_08-01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Balafoutas, Loukas & Davis, Brent J. & Sutter, Matthias, 2016. "Affirmative action or just discrimination? A study on the endogenous emergence of quotas," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 87-98.
    2. Linda Babcock & Maria P. Recalde & Lise Vesterlund & Laurie Weingart, 2017. "Gender Differences in Accepting and Receiving Requests for Tasks with Low Promotability," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(3), pages 714-747, March.
    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. Catherine Eckel & Lata Gangadharan & Philip J. Grossman & Nina Xue, 2020. "The Gender Leadership Gap: Insights from Experiments," Monash Economics Working Papers 14-20, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    2. 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).
    3. Leanne Roncolato & Alex Roomets, 2020. "Who will change the “baby?” Examining the power of gender in an experimental setting," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 823-852, September.
    4. David Card & Stefano DellaVigna & Patricia Funk & Nagore Iriberri, 2020. "Are Referees and Editors in Economics Gender Neutral?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 135(1), pages 269-327.
    5. Grossman, Philip J. & Eckel, Catherine & Komai, Mana & Zhan, Wei, 2019. "It pays to be a man: Rewards for leaders in a coordination game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 197-215.
    6. Marianne Bertrand, 2018. "Coase Lecture – The Glass Ceiling," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 85(338), pages 205-231, April.
    7. Kaori Fujishiro & Franziska Koessler, 2020. "Comparing self-reported and O*NET-based assessments of job control as predictors of self-rated health for non-Hispanic whites and racial/ethnic minorities," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-15, August.
    8. Florian Heine & Martin Sefton, 2018. "To Tender or Not to Tender? Deliberate and Exogenous Sunk Costs in a Public Good Game," Games, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 9(3), pages 1-28, June.
    9. Czibor, Eszter & Claussen, Jörg & van Praag, Mirjam, 2019. "Women in a men’s world: Risk taking in an online card game community," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 62-89.
    10. Chen, Daniel & Hopfensitz, Astrid & van Leeuwen, Boris & van de Ven, Jeroen, 2019. "The Strategic Display of Emotions," Discussion Paper 2019-014, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    11. Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Patricia Esteve-González & Anwesha Mukherjee, 2020. "Heterogeneity, Leveling the Playing Field, and Affirmative Action in Contests," Economics Series Working Papers 915, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    12. Banerjee, Ritwik & Gupta, Nabanita Datta & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2018. "The spillover effects of affirmative action on competitiveness and unethical behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 567-604.
    13. Karen Mumford & Cristina Sechel, 2020. "Pay and Job Rank among Academic Economists in the UK: Is Gender Relevant?," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 58(1), pages 82-113, March.
    14. Johnsen, Julian & Ku, Hyejin, 2020. "Competition and Career Advancement: The Hidden Costs of Paid Leave," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 13/2020, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    15. Kopányi-Peuker, Anita, 2019. "Yes, I’ll do it: A large-scale experiment on the volunteer’s dilemma," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 211-218.
    16. Cassandra M. Guarino & Victor M. H. Borden, 2017. "Faculty Service Loads and Gender: Are Women Taking Care of the Academic Family?," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 58(6), pages 672-694, September.
    17. Schildberg-Hörisch, Hannah & Trieu, Chi & Willrodt, Jana, 2020. "Perceived fairness and consequences of affirmative action policies," DICE Discussion Papers 338, University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    18. Pol Campos-Mercade, 2020. "The Volunteer’s Dilemma explains the Bystander Effect," CEBI working paper series 20-27, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. The Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality (CEBI).
    19. Manuel Bagues & Mauro Sylos-Labini & Natalia Zinovyeva, 2017. "Does the Gender Composition of Scientific Committees Matter?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(4), pages 1207-1238, April.
    20. Doğan, Pınar, 2020. "Gender differences in volunteer’s dilemma: Evidence from teamwork among graduate students," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    affirmative action; quota; sabotage; real effort; peer evaluation; fairness; discrimination;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • J33 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs - - - Compensation Packages; Payment Methods
    • J71 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor Discrimination - - - Hiring and Firing
    • M51 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Personnel Economics - - - Firm Employment Decisions; Promotions

    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:cgr:cgsser:08-01. 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: (David Kusterer). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cgkoede.html .

    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 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.

    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.