Literature DB >> 33503020

Unequal treatment toward copartisans versus non-copartisans is reduced when partisanship can be falsified.

Maria Abascal1, Kinga Makovi2, Anahit Sargsyan2.   

Abstract

Studies show that Democrats and Republicans treat copartisans better than they do non-copartisans. However, party affiliation is different from other identities associated with unequal treatment. Compared to race or gender, people can more easily falsify, i.e., lie about, their party affiliation. We use a behavioral experiment to study how people allocate resources to copartisan and non-copartisan partners when partners are allowed to falsify their affiliation and may have incentives to do so. When affiliation can be falsified, the gap between contributions to signaled copartisans and signaled non-copartisans is eliminated. This happens in part because some participants-especially strong partisans-suspect that partners who signal a copartisan affiliation are, in fact, non-copartisans. Suspected non-copartisans earn less than both partners who signal that they are non-copartisans and partners who withhold their affiliation. The findings reveal an unexpected upside to the availability of falsification: at the aggregate level, it reduces unequal treatment across groups. At the individual-level, however, falsification is risky.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33503020      PMCID: PMC7840019          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244651

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


  9 in total

1.  Inequality and visibility of wealth in experimental social networks.

Authors:  Akihiro Nishi; Hirokazu Shirado; David G Rand; Nicholas A Christakis
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2015-09-09       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Group-based trust in strangers: the role of stereotypes and expectations.

Authors:  Margaret Foddy; Michael J Platow; Toshio Yamagishi
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2009-04

3.  Segregation in social networks based on acquaintanceship and trust.

Authors:  Thomas A DiPrete; Andrew Gelman; Tyler McCormick; Julien Teitler; Tian Zheng
Journal:  AJS       Date:  2011-01

4.  Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data?

Authors:  Michael Buhrmester; Tracy Kwang; Samuel D Gosling
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2011-02-03

5.  A validation of Amazon Mechanical Turk for the collection of acceptability judgments in linguistic theory.

Authors:  Jon Sprouse
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2011-03

6.  Secrets and Misperceptions: The Creation of Self-Fulfilling Illusions.

Authors:  Sarah K Cowan
Journal:  Sociol Sci       Date:  2014-11

7.  When the tables are turned: The effects of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election on in-group favoritism and out-group hostility.

Authors:  Burak Oc; Celia Moore; Michael R Bashshur
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization.

Authors:  Christopher A Bail; Lisa P Argyle; Taylor W Brown; John P Bumpus; Haohan Chen; M B Fallin Hunzaker; Jaemin Lee; Marcus Mann; Friedolin Merhout; Alexander Volfovsky
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-08-28       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  The effect of group attachment and social position on prosocial behavior. Evidence from lab-in-the-field experiments.

Authors:  Delia Baldassarri; Guy Grossman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-03-26       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total
  1 in total

1.  Correction: Unequal treatment toward copartisans versus non-copartisans is reduced when partisanship can be falsified.

Authors:  Maria Abascal; Kinga Makovi; Anahit Sargsyan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-02-15       Impact factor: 3.240

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.