The Price of Prejudice

Hedegaard, Morten; Tyran, Jean‐Robert

doi:10.1257/app.20150241

Cited by 53 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This approach is informative about the direction of preferences, but does not yield WTP measures. Hedegaard and Tyran (2014) focus on preferences on the ethnic background of co-workers. that we advertised thereby approximating a market choice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Valuing Alternative Work Arrangements

Mas¹,

Welch²,

Charpentier³

2016

AEA Randomized Controlled Trials

179

246

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

for outstanding research assistance. This project received IRB approval from Princeton (#0000006906) and Harvard (#15-0673). This study can be found in the AEA RCT Registry (AEARCTR-0001250). The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Valuing Alternative Work Arrangements

Mas¹,

Welch²,

Charpentier³

2016

AEA Randomized Controlled Trials

179

246

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…across daycares with or without ethnic minorities. In the terminology of (Becker, 1971), and, more recently (Charles & Guryan, 2008) (Hedegaard & Tyran, 2018), the travel distance across our randomized treatments may provide a measure of the "price of prejudice" in the form of the opportunity cost of choosing a daycare that requires more daily transportation due to ethnic composition considerations. Figure A1 and A2 in the appendix show WTT for parents who prefer structured daycare and free-play daycare under each treatment (except treatment 0: NoNames),…”

Section: Willingness To Travel (Wtt) To Favored Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

Daycare Choice and Ethnic Diversity: Evidence from a Randomized Survey

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We study parental daycare choice using a randomized online survey of parents in Copenhagen. The survey respondents were asked to choose between two daycares-structured vs. free-play. In describing these hypothetical choices, the survey used testimonials from (fictive) parents whose child allegedly attended the institution, and we randomized the names of the testifying parents across the sample so that some had typical Danes names, while other names were associated with ethnic minorities. Our main findings point towards discrimination against ethnic minorities. This finding is most pronounced among parents who prefer the structured institution. Adding information about the profession of the testifiers did not significantly alter signs of lower preferences for daycares with ethnic minority names, (cautiously) suggesting that this discrimination is taste-based rather than statistical. Finally, we asked the respondents to report a willingness to travel a further distance to get to their preferred daycare (structured or free-play, respectively). Our results show that willingness to travel to the preferred daycare is higher for parents who prefer the structured daycare when there was an ethnic minority name associated with the free-play daycare.

show abstract

“…Employing 169 Danish school students (aged 16-20) for a large mailing task, Hedegaard and Tyran (2014) used a fully controlled intervention to manipulate decision makers' costs and information. Recruited to prepare letters at piece rate for 2 × 90 minutes, students were first invited to work single-handedly in separate rooms at the University of Copenhagen.…”

Section: Extended Field Experimental Designsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Use of Field Experiments to Study Mechanisms of Discrimination

Keuschnigg

Wolbring²

2016

Analyse &Amp; Kritik

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses social mechanisms of discrimination and reviews existing field experimental designs for their identification. We first explicate two social mechanisms proposed in the literature, animus-driven and statistical discrimination, to explain differential treatment based on ascriptive characteristics. We then present common approaches to study discrimination based on observational data and laboratory experiments, discuss their strengths and weaknesses, and elaborate why unobtrusive field experiments are a promising complement. However, apart from specific methodological challenges, well-established experimental designs fail to identify the mechanisms of discrimination. Consequently, we introduce a rapidly growing strand of research which actively intervenes in market activities varying costs and information for potential perpetrators to identify causal pathways of discrimination. We end with a summary of lessons learned and a discussion of challenges that lie ahead. KeywordsCausal inference, discrimination, field experiment, labor market, social inequality, social mechanism Word count10,400 words AcknowledgmentsWe thank Sonja Pointner, Merlin Schaeffer, the editors, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. M.K. and T.W. contributed equally to this work.

show abstract

The Price of Prejudice

Cited by 53 publications

References 47 publications

Valuing Alternative Work Arrangements

Valuing Alternative Work Arrangements

Daycare Choice and Ethnic Diversity: Evidence from a Randomized Survey

The Use of Field Experiments to Study Mechanisms of Discrimination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About