The Use of Identity Primes to Explain Behavioral Differences Between Groups: A Methodological Note

van Hoorn, Andre (2017): The Use of Identity Primes to Explain Behavioral Differences Between Groups: A Methodological Note. Published in: Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics No. 74 (June 2018): pp. 146-151.

Abstract

Economists are increasingly using primes that make group identity salient to overcome the inferential limitations of behavioral quasi-experiments involving pre-existing groups (e.g., males vs. females). However, while priming group identity provides powerful means for identifying a causal effect of group membership on individuals’ preferences, so far, there has been little methodological reflection on the use of identity primes to identify the causes of group differences in preferences. This note’s main contribution is to offer a framework for thinking systematically about the treatment effects of priming individuals’ group identity and the identification of specific group traits explaining differences in preferences or behavior between pre-existing groups. The framework sets a high bar for studying the causes of group differences in preferences using identity primes but we clarify its usefulness using concrete examples.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Experimentation; random assignment; salience; quasi-experiment; group membership; culture
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C3 - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models ; Multiple Variables > C36 - Instrumental Variables (IV) Estimation; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments > C90 - General; Z - Other Special Topics > Z1 - Cultural Economics ; Economic Sociology ; Economic Anthropology > Z10 - General

References

Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2008). Eliciting Risk and Time Preferences. Econometrica, 76, 583-618.

Beck, A., Kerschbamer, R., Qiu, J., & Sutter, M. (2014). Car mechanics in the lab––Investigating the behavior of real experts on experimental markets for credence goods. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 108, 166-173.

Bellemare, C., Kröger, S., & Van Soest, A. (2008). Measuring Inequity Aversion in a Heterogeneous Population Using Experimental Decisions and Subjective Probabilities. Econometrica, 76, 815-839.

Benjamin, D. J., Choi, J. J., & Strickland, A. J. (2010). Social Identity and Preferences. American Economic Review, 100, 1913-1928.

Benjamin, D. J., Choi, J. J., & Fisher, G. (2016). Religious identity and economic behavior. Review of Economics and Statistics, 98, 617-637.

Berry, J. W. (2002). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bond, M. H., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2011). Making scientific sense of cultural differences in psychological outcomes: Unpackaging the magnum mysterium. In: Matsumoto, D., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R., Eds. Cross-cultural research methods in psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 75-100.

Burnham, T. C., & Kurzban, R. (2005). On the limitations of quasi-experiments. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 818-819.

Camerer, C., & Fehr, E. (2004). Measuring social norms and preferences using experimental games: A guide for social scientists. In: Henrich, J., et al., Eds. Foundations of Human Sociality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cason, T. N., Saijo, T., & Yamato, T. (2002). Voluntary participation and spite in public good provision experiments: an international comparison. Experimental Economics, 5, 133-153.

Charness, G., & Villeval, M. C. (2009). Cooperation and Competition in Intergenerational Experiments in the Field and the Laboratory. American Economic Review, 99, 956-978.

Cohn, A., Fehr, E., & Maréchal, M. A. (2014). Business culture and dishonesty in the banking industry. Nature, 516, 86-89.

Cohn, A., Maréchal, M. A., & Noll, T. (2013). Bad boys: The effect of criminal identity on dishonesty. University of Zürich, Working Paper, (132).

Cohn, A., Maréchal, M. A., & Noll, T. (2015). Bad boys: How criminal identity salience affects rule violation. Review of Economic Studies, 82, 1289-1308.

Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Croson, R., & Buchan, N. (1999). Gender and culture: International experimental evidence from trust games. American Economic Review, 89, 386-391.

Croson, R., &. Gächter, S. (2010). The science of experimental economics. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 73, 122-131.

Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2008). Differences in the Economic Decisions of Men and Women: Experimental Evidence. In: Plott, C. R., & Smith, V. L., Eds. Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Volume 1. New York: Elsevier: 509-519.

Fehr, E., & List, J. A. (2004). The hidden costs and returns of incentives—trust and trustworthiness among CEOs. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2, 743-771.

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. (2011). The financial crisis inquiry report: Final report of the national commission on the causes of the financial and economic crisis in the United States. http://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-reports/fcic_final_report_full.pdf.

Gächter, S., Herrmann, B., &. Thöni, C. (2010). Culture and Cooperation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365, 2651-2661.

Gächter, S., & Schulz, J. F. (2016). Intrinsic honesty and the prevalence of rule violations across societies. Nature, 531, 496-499.

Gneezy, U., Leonard, K. L., & List, J. A. (2009). Gender Differences in Competition: Evidence from a Matrilineal and a Patriarchal Society. Econometrica, 77, 1637-1664.

Gong, B., Yan, H., & Yang, C. L. (2015). Gender differences in the dictator experiment: evidence from the matrilineal Mosuo and the patriarchal Yi. Experimental Economics, 18, 302-313.

Greene, W. H. (2003). Econometric Analysis (Fifth ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice-Hall.

Guala, F. (2008). Paradigmatic Experiments: The Ultimatum Game from Testing to Measurement Device. Philosophy of Science, 75, 658-669.

Haigh, M. S., & List, J. A. (2005). Do professional traders exhibit myopic loss aversion? An experimental analysis. Journal of Finance, 60, 523-534.

Harbaugh, W. T., Krause, K., & Vesterlund, L. (2002). Risk Attitudes of Children and Adults: Choices over Small and Large Probability Gains and Losses. Experimental Economics, 5, 53-84.

Henrich, J., et al. (2001). In Search of Homo Economicus: Behavioral Experiments in 15 Small-Scale Societies. American Economic Review, 91, 73-78.

Herrmann, B., Thoni, C., & Gächter, S. (2008). Antisocial punishment across societies. Science, 319, 1362-1367.

Leung, K., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2008). Strategies for strengthening causal inferences in cross cultural research: The consilience approach. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8, 145-169.

Marwell, G., & Ames, R. E. (1981). Economists free ride, does anyone else?: Experiments on the provision of public goods, IV. Journal of Public Economics, 15, 295-310.

Matsumoto, D., & Yoo, S. H. (2006). Toward a new generation of cross-cultural research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 234-250.

Mishra, S., Hing, L. S. S., & Lalumiere, M. L. (2015). Inequality and risk-taking. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(3), 1474704915596295.

Oosterbeek, H., Sloof, R., & Van de Kuilen, G. (2004). Cultural differences in ultimatum game experiments: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Experimental Economics, 7, 171-188.

Oyserman, D., & Lee, S. W. (2008). Does culture influence what and how we think? Effects of priming individualism and collectivism. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 311-342.

Payne, B. K., Brown-Iannuzzi, J. L., & Hannay, J. W. (2017). Economic inequality increases risk taking. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 114, 4643-4648.

Plott, C. R., & Smith, V. L., Eds. (2008). Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Volume 1. New York: Elsevier.

Poortinga, Y. H. (2016). Integration of Basic Controversies in Cross-cultural Psychology. Psychology and Developing Societies, 28, 161-182.

Roth, A. E., Prasnikar, V., Okuno-Fujiwara, M., & S. Zamir, S. 1991. Bargaining and Market Behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo: An Experimental Study. American Economic Review, 81, 1068-1095.

Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1981). Manipulating salience: Causal assessment in natural settings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 554-558.

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston / New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Stiglitz, J. E., & Members of a UN Commission of Financial Experts. (2010). The Stiglitz report: Reforming the international monetary and financial systems in the wake of the global crisis. New York: New Press.

Stöckl, T. (2015). Dishonest or professional behavior? Can we tell? A comment on: Cohn et al. 2014, Nature 516, 86-89, “Business culture and dishonesty in the banking industry”. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 8, 64-67.

Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Van Hoorn, A. (2012). Cross-cultural experiments are more useful when explanans and explanandum are separated. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 109, E1329-E1329.

Van Hoorn, A. (2015a). The global financial crisis and the values of professionals in finance: An empirical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 130, 253–269.

Van Hoorn, A. (2015b). Organizational culture in the financial sector: Evidence from a cross-industry analysis of employee personal values and career success. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2932-6.

Visser, M. S., & Roelofs, M. R. (2011). Heterogeneous preferences for altruism: gender and personality, social status, giving and taking. Experimental Economics, 14, 490-506.

Von Gaudecker, H. M., Van Soest, A., & Wengström, E. (2011). Heterogeneity in risky choice behavior in a broad population. American Economic Review, 101, 664-694.

Vranka, M. A., & Houdek, P. (2015). Many faces of bankers’ identity: how (not) to study dishonesty. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 302.