The rationale of in-group favoritism: An experimental test of three explanations

A Stranger in a Strange Land: Promises and Identity

“…3 Ockenfels and Werner (2014) showed that in-group favoritism may be belief dependent when dictators can strategically manipulate recipients' beliefs. Refining Ockenfels and Werner (2014), Ciccarone, Di Bartolomeo and Papa (2020) provide support to the idea that people have a general intrinsic preference for group members. example, Catholic, female, or Black, thereby implicitly defining them.…”

“…Based on Ciccarone, Di Bartolomeo and Papa (2020), who found in-group favoritism in the same context without communication, we expect H1 to hold. This also follows from there being less social distance for in-group members due to their common identity.…”

“…Prescriptions indicate the behavior appropriate for people in different social categories in different situations. Their versatile framework has been applied to analyses of gender discrimination, the economics of poverty and social exclusion, the household division of 9 Ciccarone, Di Bartolomeo and Papa (2020) found in-group favoritism in the same context without communication.…”

“…One insight from social-identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) is that people derive self-esteem from group membership and adopt behaviors that are consistent with the norms and stereotypes associated with that group identity. Akerlof and Kranton (2000), Charness, Rigotti, and Rustichini (2007), Chen and Li (2009), and Chen and Chen (2011) introduce identity issues into the experimental literature, and Ockenfels and Werner (2014) and Ciccarone, Di Bartolomeo, and Papa (2020) extend the issue to explore the relationship between in-group favoritism and beliefs. 3 According to the Tajfel and Turner (1979) theory, social identity has three components: categorization, identification, and comparison.…”

What Economists Can Learn from “The Power of Us: Harnessing Our Shared Identities for Personal and Collective Success” by Jay J. Van Bavel and Dominick J. Packer

“…The perceived distance between a subject and the ingroup, but also between the subject and the outgroup, can be manipulated in several ways. This is well known in the experimental economics literature (see, e.g., [9][10][11][12][13]). However, Van Bavel and Packer interestingly highlight how the social distance between the subject and the outgroup might be reduced by shifting weight on a dimension on which all (both ingroup and outgroup) members are identical.…”