Partisan Discrimination in Hiring*

References

1. 1. Abbink, K. and
   2. Harris, D.

   (2019). In-group favouritism and out-group discrimination in naturally occurring groups. PloS one, 14(9):e0221616.

   OpenUrlPubMed
2. 1. Abel, M.

   (2023). Labor market discrimination and sorting: evidence from south africa. Journal of African Economies, 32(4):331–351.

   OpenUrl
3. 1. Abel, M.

   (2024). Do workers discriminate against female bosses? Journal of Human Resources, 59(2):470–501.

   OpenUrlFREE Full Text
4. 1. Abel, M. and
   2. Burger, R.

   (2023). Name-based race discrimination: The role of heuristics. Working Paper.
5. 1. Abeler, J.,
   2. Nosenzo, D., and
   3. Raymond, C.

   (2019). Preferences for truth-telling. Econometrica, 87(4):1115–1153.

   OpenUrl
6. 1. Ahler, D. J. and
   2. Sood, G.

   (2018). The parties in our heads: Misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. The Journal of Politics, 80(3):964–981.

   OpenUrl
7. 1. Alesina, A. and
   2. Angeletos, G.-M.

   (2005). Fairness and redistribution. American economic review, 95(4):960–980.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
8. 1. Arrow, K. J.

   (1973). The theory of discrimination. In Discrimination in labor markets, pages 1–33. Princeton University Press.
9. 1. Banaji, M. R.

   (2013). The implicit association test at age 7: A methodological and conceptual review. Social psychology and the unconscious: The automaticity of higher mental processes, 265.
10. 1. Barron, K.,
    2. Ditlmann, R.,
    3. Gehrig, S., and
    4. Schweighofer-Kodritsch, S.

    (2024). Explicit and implicit belief-based gender discrimination: A hiring experiment. Management Science.
11. 1. Bartoš, V.,
    2. Bauer, M.,
    3. Chytilová, J., and
    4. Matějka, F.

    (2016). Attention discrimination: Theory and field experiments with monitoring information acquisition. American Economic Review, 106(6):1437–1475.

    OpenUrl
12. 1. Becker, G. S.

    (1957). The economics of discrimination. University of Chicago press.
13. 1. Bénabou, R. and
    2. Tirole, J.

    (2006). Incentives and prosocial behavior. American economic review, 96(5):1652–1678.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
14. 1. Bénabou, R. and
    2. Tirole, J.

    (2011). Identity, morals, and taboos: Beliefs as assets. The quarterly journal of economics, 126(2):805–855.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
15. 1. Benson, A.,
    2. Board, S., and
    3. Meyer-ter Vehn, M.

    (2024). Discrimination in hiring: Evidence from retail sales. Review of Economic Studies, 91(4):1956–1987.

    OpenUrl
16. 1. Bohnet, I.,
    2. Van Geen, A., and
    3. Bazerman, M.

    (2016). When performance trumps gender bias: Joint vs. separate evaluation. Management Science, 62(5):1225–1234.

    OpenUrl
17. 1. Bohren, J. A.,
    2. Haggag, K.,
    3. Imas, A., and
    4. Pope, D. G.

    (2023). Inaccurate statistical discrimination: An identification problem. Review of Economics and Statistics, pages 1–45.
18. 1. Boxell, L.,
    2. Gentzkow, M., and
    3. Shapiro, J. M.

    (2024). Cross-country trends in affective polarization. Review of Economics and Statistics, 106(2):557–565.

    OpenUrl
19. 1. Bullock, J. G. and
    2. Lenz, G.

    (2019). Partisan bias in surveys. Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1):325–342.

    OpenUrl
20. 1. Bursztyn, L. and
    2. Jensen, R.

    (2017). Social image and economic behavior in the field: Identifying, understanding, and shaping social pressure. Annual Review of Economics, 9(1):131–153.

    OpenUrl
21. 1. Camerer, C. F. and
    2. Hogarth, R. M.

    (1999). The effects of financial incentives in experiments: A review and capital-labor-production framework. Journal of risk and uncertainty, 19:7–42.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
22. 1. Carpenter, J. and
    2. Robbett, A.

    (2024). Measuring socially appropriate social preferences. Games and Economic Behavior, 147:517–532.

    OpenUrl
23. 1. Carpenter, J.,
    2. Verhoogen, E., and
    3. Burks, S.

    (2005). The effect of stakes in distribution experiments. Economics Letters, 86(3):393–398.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
24. 1. Chan, A.

    (2022). Discrimination against doctors: A field experiment. Unpublished manuscript.
25. 1. Chen, Y. and
    2. Li, S. X.

    (2009). Group identity and social preferences. American Economic Review, 99(1):431–57.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
26. 1. Coffman, K. B.,
    2. Exley, C. L., and
    3. Niederle, M.

    (2021). The role of beliefs in driving gender discrimination. Management Science, 67(6):3551–3569.

    OpenUrl
27. 1. Colonnelli, E.,
    2. Neto, V. P., and
    3. Teso, E.

    (2024). Politics at work. Working paper.
28. 1. Dana, J.,
    2. Weber, R. A., and
    3. Kuang, J. X.

    (2007). Exploiting moral wiggle room: experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness. Economic Theory, 33(1):67–80.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
29. 1. DellaVigna, S. and
    2. Pope, D.

    (2018). What motivates effort? evidence and expert forecasts. The Review of Economic Studies, 85(2):1029–1069.

    OpenUrl
30. 1. Dimant, E.

    (2024). Hate trumps love: The impact of political polarization on social preferences. Management Science, 70(1):1–31.

    OpenUrl
31. 1. Engelhardt, A. M. and
    2. Utych, S. M.

    (2020). Grand old (tailgate) party? partisan discrimination in apolitical settings. Political Behavior, 42(3):769–789.

    OpenUrl
32. 1. Enke, B.,
    2. Gneezy, U.,
    3. Hall, B.,
    4. Martin, D.,
    5. Nelidov, V.,
    6. Offerman, T., and
    7. Van De Ven, J.

    (2023). Cognitive biases: Mistakes or missing stakes? Review of Economics and Statistics, 105(4):818–832.

    OpenUrl
33. 1. Esponda, I.,
    2. Vespa, E., and
    3. Yuksel, S.

    (2024). Mental models and learning: The case of base-rate neglect. American Economic Review, 114(3):752–782.

    OpenUrl
34. 1. Fehr, E. and
    2. Charness, G.

    (2023). Social preferences: fundamental characteristics and economic consequences. CESifo Working Paper.
35. 1. Fehr, E. and
    2. Schmidt, K. M.

    (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The quarterly journal of economics, 114(3):817–868.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
36. 1. Finkel, E. J.,
    2. Bail, C. A.,
    3. Cikara, M.,
    4. Ditto, P. H.,
    5. Iyengar, S.,
    6. Klar, S.,
    7. Mason, L.,
    8. McGrath, M. C.,
    9. Nyhan, B.,
    10. Rand, D. G.,

    et al. (2020). Political sectarianism in america. Science, 370(6516):533–536.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
37. 1. Gift, K. and
    2. Gift, T.

    (2015). Does politics influence hiring? evidence from a randomized experiment. Political Behavior, 37:653–675.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
38. 1. Glover, D.,
    2. Pallais, A., and
    3. Pariente, W.

    (2017). Discrimination as a self-fulfilling prophecy: Evidence from french grocery stores. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 132(3):1219–1260.

    OpenUrl
39. 1. Grossmann, M. and
    2. Hopkins, D. A.

    (2024). Polarized by Degrees. Cambridge University Press.
40. 1. Hartman, R.,
    2. Hester, N., and
    3. Gray, K.

    (2023). People see political opponents as more stupid than evil. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 49(7):1014–1027.

    OpenUrlPubMed
41. 1. Huber, G. A. and
    2. Malhotra, N.

    (2017). Political homophily in social relationships: Evidence from online dating behavior. The Journal of Politics, 79(1):269–283.

    OpenUrl
42. 1. Iyengar, S.,
    2. Lelkes, Y.,
    3. Levendusky, M.,
    4. Malhotra, N., and
    5. Westwood, S. J.

    (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the united states. Annual review of political science, 22(1):129–146.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
43. 1. Iyengar, S.,
    2. Lelkes, Y., and
    3. Westwood, S. J.

    (2024). America’s political pulse. The Journal of Politics.
44. 1. Iyengar, S.,
    2. Sood, G., and
    3. Lelkes, Y.

    (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public opinion quarterly, 76(3):405–431.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
45. 1. Iyengar, S. and
    2. Westwood, S. J.

    (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American journal of political science, 59(3):690–707.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
46. 1. Kocher, M. G.,
    2. Martinsson, P., and
    3. Visser, M.

    (2008). Does stake size matter for cooperation and punishment? Economics Letters, 99(3):508–511.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
47. 1. Kranton, R. E. and
    2. Sanders, S. G.

    (2017). Groupy versus non-groupy social preferences: Personality, region, and political party. American Economic Review, 107(5):65–69.

    OpenUrl
48. 1. Krupka, E. L. and
    2. Weber, R. A.

    (2013). Identifying social norms using coordination games: Why does dictator game sharing vary? Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(3):495–524.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
49. 1. Larney, A.,
    2. Rotella, A., and
    3. Barclay, P.

    (2019). Stake size effects in ultimatum game and dictator game offers: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151:61–72.

    OpenUrl
50. 1. Leibbrandt, A.,
    2. Maitra, P., and
    3. Neelim, A.

    (2018). Large stakes and little honesty? experimental evidence from a developing country. Economics Letters, 169:76–79.

    OpenUrl
51. 1. Lelkes, Y. and
    2. Westwood, S. J.

    (2017). The limits of partisan prejudice. The Journal of Politics, 79(2):485–501.

    OpenUrl
52. 1. McConnell, C.,
    2. Margalit, Y.,
    3. Malhotra, N., and
    4. Levendusky, M.

    (2018). The economic consequences of partisanship in a polarized era. American Journal of Political Science, 62(1):5–18.

    OpenUrl
53. 1. McIntosh, J.

    (2020). Crybabies and snowflakes. Language in the Trump era: Scandals and emergencies, pages 74–88.
54. 1. Munro, G. D.,
    2. Lasane, T. P., and
    3. Leary, S. P.

    (2010). Political partisan prejudice: Selective distortion and weighting of evaluative categories in college admissions applications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(9):2434–2462.

    OpenUrl
55. 1. Olivola, C. Y.,
    2. Sussman, A. B.,
    3. Tsetsos, K.,
    4. Kang, O. E., and
    5. Todorov, A.

    (2012). Republicans prefer republican-looking leaders: Political facial stereotypes predict candidate electoral success among right-leaning voters. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(5):605–613.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
56. 1. Oswald, F. L.,
    2. Mitchell, G.,
    3. Blanton, H.,
    4. Jaccard, J., and
    5. Tetlock, P. E.

    (2013). Predicting ethnic and racial discrimination: a meta-analysis of iat criterion studies. Journal of personality and social psychology, 105(2):171.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
57. 1. Pager, D. and
    2. Pedulla, D. S.

    (2015). Race, self-selection, and the job search process. American Journal of Sociology, 120(4):1005–1054.

    OpenUrlPubMed
58. 1. Pew Research Center

    (2022). Republicans and democrats increasingly critical of people in the opposing party.
59. 1. Phelps, E. S.

    (1972). The statistical theory of racism and sexism. The american economic review, 62(4):659–661.

    OpenUrl
60. 1. Pickup, M.,
    2. Kimbrough, E. O., and
    3. de Rooij, E. A.

    (2021). Expressive politics as (costly) norm following. Political behavior, pages 1–21.
61. 1. Reuben, E.,
    2. Sapienza, P., and
    3. Zingales, L.

    (2014). How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(12):4403–4408.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
62. 1. Robbett, A. and
    2. Matthews, P.

    (2023). Polarization and group cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 18(2).
63. 1. Robbett, A. and
    2. Matthews, P. H.

    (2018). Partisan bias and expressive voting. Journal of Public Economics, 157:107–120.

    OpenUrl
64. 1. Robbett, A.,
    2. Walsh, H., and
    3. Matthews, P.

    (2024). Moral wiggle room and group favoritism among political partisans. PNAS Nexus.
65. 1. Rule, N. O. and
    2. Ambady, N.

    (2010). Democrats and republicans can be differentiated from their faces. PloS one, 5(1):e8733.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
66. 1. Spinner-Halev, J. and
    2. Theiss-Morse, E.

    (2024). Respect and Loathing in American Democracy: Polarization, Moralization, and the Undermining of Equality. University of Chicago Press.
67. 1. Stone, D. F.

    (2023). Undue Hate: A Behavioral Economic Analysis of Hostile Polarization in US Politics and Beyond. The MIT Press.
68. 1. Tajfel, H.,
    2. Billig, M. G.,
    3. Bundy, R. P., and
    4. Flament, C.

    (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European journal of social psychology, 1(2):149–178.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
69. 1. Van Lange, P. A.,
    2. Bekkers, R.,
    3. Chirumbolo, A., and
    4. Leone, L.

    (2012). Are conservatives less likely to be prosocial than liberals? from games to ideology, political preferences and votingg. European Journal of Personality, 26(5):461–473.

    OpenUrl
70. 1. Voelkel, J. G.,
    2. Chu, J.,
    3. Stagnaro, M. N.,
    4. Mernyk, J. S.,
    5. Redekopp, C.,
    6. Pink, S. L.,
    7. Druckman, J. N.,
    8. Rand, D. G., and
    9. Willer, R.

    (2023). Interventions reducing affective polarization do not necessarily improve anti-democratic attitudes. Nature human behaviour, 7(1):55–64.

    OpenUrlPubMed
71. 1. Whitt, S.,
    2. Yanus, A. B.,
    3. McDonald, B.,
    4. Graeber, J.,
    5. Setzler, M.,
    6. Ballingrud, G., and
    7. Kifer, M.

    (2021). Tribalism in america: behavioral experiments on affective polarization in the trump era. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 8(3):247–259.

    OpenUrl
72. 1. Zhang, Y. and
    2. Rand, D. G.

    (2023). Sincere or motivated? partisan bias in advice-taking. Judgment and Decision Making, 18:e29.

    OpenUrl