IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp6530.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Ingratiation and Favoritism: Experimental Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Robin, Stéphane R.

    (Université catholique de Louvain)

  • Rusinowska, Agnieszka

    (Paris School of Economics)

  • Villeval, Marie Claire

    (CNRS, GATE)

Abstract

We 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Robin, Stéphane R. & Rusinowska, Agnieszka & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2012. "Ingratiation and Favoritism: Experimental Evidence," IZA Discussion Papers 6530, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
  • Handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp6530
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://docs.iza.org/dp6530.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. The Gravitational Pull towards Groupthink
      by Nicholas Gruen in Club Troppo on 2012-06-03 08:03:56

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Schmidt, Robert J. & Trautmann, Stefan T., 2019. "Implementing (Un)fair Procedures? Favoritism and Process Fairness when Inequality is Inevitable," Other publications TiSEM 125472e2-51a2-4cf9-aab5-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    2. repec:awi:wpaper:661 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Axel Sonntag & Daniel John Zizzo, 2015. "Institutional authority and collusion," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 82(1), pages 13-37, July.
    4. Karakostas, Alexandros & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2016. "Compliance and the power of authority," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 67-80.
    5. Sanchez-Ruiz, Paul & Wood, Matthew S. & Long-Ruboyianes, Anna, 2021. "Persuasive or polarizing? The influence of entrepreneurs' use of ingratiation rhetoric on investor funding decisions," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 36(4).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    social distance; ingratiation; opinion conformity; favoritism; discrimination; experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • 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 Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D86 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Economics of Contract Law
    • 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:iza:izadps:dp6530. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Holger Hinte (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/izaaade.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.