Endophilia or Exophobia: Beyond Discrimination

The discrimination literature treats outcomes as relative. But does a differential arise because agents discriminate against others – exophobia – or because they favour their own kind - endophilia? Using a field experiment that assigned graders randomly to students' examinations that did/did no...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Economic journal (London) 2016-08, Vol.126 (594), p.1503-1527
Main Authors: Feld, Jan, Salamanca, Nicolás, Hamermesh, Daniel S.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Academic grading
ASSOCIATION
BEHAVIOR
BIAS
Discrimination
Economics
Employment policies
FAVORITISM
GENDER
JUDGMENT
Nationalekonomi
NEPOTISM
Studies
Wage differential
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4999-d0c4cae5cddd3044bbf4379084a29a14bda2f34526510a8adafde5bf42cc47a43
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4999-d0c4cae5cddd3044bbf4379084a29a14bda2f34526510a8adafde5bf42cc47a43
container_end_page 1527
container_issue 594
container_start_page 1503
container_title The Economic journal (London)
container_volume 126
creator Feld, Jan
Salamanca, Nicolás
Hamermesh, Daniel S.
description The discrimination literature treats outcomes as relative. But does a differential arise because agents discriminate against others – exophobia – or because they favour their own kind - endophilia? Using a field experiment that assigned graders randomly to students' examinations that did/did not contain names, we find favouritism but no discrimination by nationality nor by gender. We are able to identify these preferences under a wide range of behavioural scenarios regarding the graders. That endophilia dominates exophobia alters how we should measure discriminatory wage differentials and should inform the formulation of anti-discrimination policy.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/ecoj.12289
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_swepu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_swepub_primary_oai_gup_ub_gu_se_243176</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>44076864</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>44076864</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4999-d0c4cae5cddd3044bbf4379084a29a14bda2f34526510a8adafde5bf42cc47a43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtLAzEUhYMoWKsb98KAO2FqXvNyp22tlmLFB4KbkEkyNbVOxmSGtv_e1NHiygsh3OQ7NycHgGMEe8jXuRJm3kMYp9kO6CAapyHEWbILOhAiEvpF9sGBc3PoCxPaAb1hKU31pheaB8YGw5VvTK75RXCl1qaUwUA7YfWHLnmtTXkI9gq-cOroZ--C5-vhU_8mnExHt_3LSSholmWhhIIKriIhpSSQ0jwvKEkymFKOM45oLjkuCI1wHCHIUy55IVXkISwETTglXRC2c91SVU3OKm-B2zUzXLNZUzF_NGuYUwxTgpLY86ctX1nz2ShXs7lpbOktMpQi6B9KSOSps5YS1jhnVbGdiyDb5Mc2-bHv_DyMWnipF2r9D8mG_en4V3PSauauNnaroRQmcRr_-ZZ2tVpt77l9Z95gErGXuxF7uH8d9B_HA5aQL6FrizU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1810526735</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Endophilia or Exophobia: Beyond Discrimination</title><source>EconLit s plnými texty</source><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Ultimate</source><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><source>Oxford Journals Online</source><creator>Feld, Jan ; Salamanca, Nicolás ; Hamermesh, Daniel S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Feld, Jan ; Salamanca, Nicolás ; Hamermesh, Daniel S.</creatorcontrib><description>The discrimination literature treats outcomes as relative. But does a differential arise because agents discriminate against others – exophobia – or because they favour their own kind - endophilia? Using a field experiment that assigned graders randomly to students' examinations that did/did not contain names, we find favouritism but no discrimination by nationality nor by gender. We are able to identify these preferences under a wide range of behavioural scenarios regarding the graders. That endophilia dominates exophobia alters how we should measure discriminatory wage differentials and should inform the formulation of anti-discrimination policy.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0013-0133</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-0297</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/ecoj.12289</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ECJOAB</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Academic grading ; ASSOCIATION ; BEHAVIOR ; BIAS ; Discrimination ; Economics ; Employment policies ; FAVORITISM ; GENDER ; JUDGMENT ; Nationalekonomi ; NEPOTISM ; Studies ; Wage differential</subject><ispartof>The Economic journal (London), 2016-08, Vol.126 (594), p.1503-1527</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2016 Royal Economic Society</rights><rights>2015 Royal Economic Society</rights><rights>Copyright Blackwell Publishers Aug 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4999-d0c4cae5cddd3044bbf4379084a29a14bda2f34526510a8adafde5bf42cc47a43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4999-d0c4cae5cddd3044bbf4379084a29a14bda2f34526510a8adafde5bf42cc47a43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44076864$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/44076864$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27924,27925,33223,58238,58471</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://gup.ub.gu.se/publication/243176$$DView record from Swedish Publication Index$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Feld, Jan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salamanca, Nicolás</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hamermesh, Daniel S.</creatorcontrib><title>Endophilia or Exophobia: Beyond Discrimination</title><title>The Economic journal (London)</title><addtitle>Econ J</addtitle><description>The discrimination literature treats outcomes as relative. But does a differential arise because agents discriminate against others – exophobia – or because they favour their own kind - endophilia? Using a field experiment that assigned graders randomly to students' examinations that did/did not contain names, we find favouritism but no discrimination by nationality nor by gender. We are able to identify these preferences under a wide range of behavioural scenarios regarding the graders. That endophilia dominates exophobia alters how we should measure discriminatory wage differentials and should inform the formulation of anti-discrimination policy.</description><subject>Academic grading</subject><subject>ASSOCIATION</subject><subject>BEHAVIOR</subject><subject>BIAS</subject><subject>Discrimination</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>Employment policies</subject><subject>FAVORITISM</subject><subject>GENDER</subject><subject>JUDGMENT</subject><subject>Nationalekonomi</subject><subject>NEPOTISM</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Wage differential</subject><issn>0013-0133</issn><issn>1468-0297</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kEtLAzEUhYMoWKsb98KAO2FqXvNyp22tlmLFB4KbkEkyNbVOxmSGtv_e1NHiygsh3OQ7NycHgGMEe8jXuRJm3kMYp9kO6CAapyHEWbILOhAiEvpF9sGBc3PoCxPaAb1hKU31pheaB8YGw5VvTK75RXCl1qaUwUA7YfWHLnmtTXkI9gq-cOroZ--C5-vhU_8mnExHt_3LSSholmWhhIIKriIhpSSQ0jwvKEkymFKOM45oLjkuCI1wHCHIUy55IVXkISwETTglXRC2c91SVU3OKm-B2zUzXLNZUzF_NGuYUwxTgpLY86ctX1nz2ShXs7lpbOktMpQi6B9KSOSps5YS1jhnVbGdiyDb5Mc2-bHv_DyMWnipF2r9D8mG_en4V3PSauauNnaroRQmcRr_-ZZ2tVpt77l9Z95gErGXuxF7uH8d9B_HA5aQL6FrizU</recordid><startdate>201608</startdate><enddate>201608</enddate><creator>Feld, Jan</creator><creator>Salamanca, Nicolás</creator><creator>Hamermesh, Daniel S.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</general><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>ADTPV</scope><scope>AOWAS</scope><scope>F1U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201608</creationdate><title>Endophilia or Exophobia: Beyond Discrimination</title><author>Feld, Jan ; Salamanca, Nicolás ; Hamermesh, Daniel S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4999-d0c4cae5cddd3044bbf4379084a29a14bda2f34526510a8adafde5bf42cc47a43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Academic grading</topic><topic>ASSOCIATION</topic><topic>BEHAVIOR</topic><topic>BIAS</topic><topic>Discrimination</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>Employment policies</topic><topic>FAVORITISM</topic><topic>GENDER</topic><topic>JUDGMENT</topic><topic>Nationalekonomi</topic><topic>NEPOTISM</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Wage differential</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Feld, Jan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salamanca, Nicolás</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hamermesh, Daniel S.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>SwePub</collection><collection>SwePub Articles</collection><collection>SWEPUB Göteborgs universitet</collection><jtitle>The Economic journal (London)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Feld, Jan</au><au>Salamanca, Nicolás</au><au>Hamermesh, Daniel S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Endophilia or Exophobia: Beyond Discrimination</atitle><jtitle>The Economic journal (London)</jtitle><addtitle>Econ J</addtitle><date>2016-08</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>126</volume><issue>594</issue><spage>1503</spage><epage>1527</epage><pages>1503-1527</pages><issn>0013-0133</issn><eissn>1468-0297</eissn><coden>ECJOAB</coden><abstract>The discrimination literature treats outcomes as relative. But does a differential arise because agents discriminate against others – exophobia – or because they favour their own kind - endophilia? Using a field experiment that assigned graders randomly to students' examinations that did/did not contain names, we find favouritism but no discrimination by nationality nor by gender. We are able to identify these preferences under a wide range of behavioural scenarios regarding the graders. That endophilia dominates exophobia alters how we should measure discriminatory wage differentials and should inform the formulation of anti-discrimination policy.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/ecoj.12289</doi><tpages>25</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0013-0133
ispartof The Economic journal (London), 2016-08, Vol.126 (594), p.1503-1527
issn 0013-0133
1468-0297
language eng
recordid cdi_swepub_primary_oai_gup_ub_gu_se_243176
source EconLit s plnými texty; EBSCOhost Business Source Ultimate; International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection; Oxford Journals Online
subjects Academic grading
ASSOCIATION
BEHAVIOR
BIAS
Discrimination
Economics
Employment policies
FAVORITISM
GENDER
JUDGMENT
Nationalekonomi
NEPOTISM
Studies
Wage differential
title Endophilia or Exophobia: Beyond Discrimination
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T18%3A37%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_swepu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Endophilia%20or%20Exophobia:%20Beyond%20Discrimination&rft.jtitle=The%20Economic%20journal%20(London)&rft.au=Feld,%20Jan&rft.date=2016-08&rft.volume=126&rft.issue=594&rft.spage=1503&rft.epage=1527&rft.pages=1503-1527&rft.issn=0013-0133&rft.eissn=1468-0297&rft.coden=ECJOAB&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/ecoj.12289&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_swepu%3E44076864%3C/jstor_swepu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4999-d0c4cae5cddd3044bbf4379084a29a14bda2f34526510a8adafde5bf42cc47a43%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1810526735&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=44076864&rfr_iscdi=true