Christina Rott

We conduct a large-scale natural field experiment with a Fortune 500 company to test several light-touch approaches to attract minorities to high-profile positions. A total of 5,000 prospective applicants were randomized into treatments that vary a small portion of recruiting materials. We find that self-selection at two early-career stages exhibits a substantial race gap. We then show that this gap can be strongly influenced by several treatments, with some closing the race gap and increasing application rates of minorities by 40% and others being particularly effective for minority women. These effects are not accompanied by any declines in application rates of majority group job seekers. In addition, we do not find that endorsing the “business case” for diversity reduces the race gap or raises application rates by minorities or women. The heterogeneities we find by gender, race, and career stage shed light on the underlying drivers of self-selection barriers among minorities. This paper was accepted by Yan Chen, behavioral economics and decision analysis. Funding: The authors thank the Brigham Young University College of Family, Home, and Social Science for generous research support. This research was funded in part by the Lowe Institute of Political Economy at Claremont McKenna College as well as the Australian Research Council Future Fellowship grant Nr. 190100252. Christina Rott thanks the School of Business and Economics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, for research support through the Hermine Weijland Fellowship. Supplemental Material: The data files and online appendices are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.4909 .

We investigate the effects of group identity on hiring decisions with adverse selection problems. We run a laboratory experiment in which employers cannot observe a worker’s ability or verify the veracity of the ability the worker claims to have. We evaluate whether sharing an identity results in employers discriminating in favor of ingroup workers and whether it helps workers and employers overcome the adverse selection problem. We induce identities using the minimal group paradigm and study two settings: one in which workers cannot change their identity and one in which they can. Although sharing a common identity does not make the worker’s claims more honest, employers strongly discriminate in favor of ingroup workers when identities are fixed. Discrimination cannot be explained by employers’ beliefs and, hence, seems to be taste-based. When possible, few workers change their identity. However, the mere possibility of changing identities erodes the employers’ trust toward ingroup workers and eliminates discrimination. This paper was accepted by Yan Chen, behavioral economics and decision analysis.

We investigate the effects of group identity on hiring decisions with adverse selection problems. We run a laboratory experiment in which employers cannot observe a worker's ability nor verify the veracity of the ability the worker claims to have. We evaluate whether sharing an identity results in employers discriminating in favor of ingroup workers, and whether it helps workers and employers overcome the adverse selection problem. We induce identities using the minimal group paradigm and study two settings: one where workers cannot change their identity and one where they can. Although sharing a common identity does not make the worker's claims more honest, employers strongly discriminate in favor of ingroup workers when identities are fixed. Discrimination cannot be explained by employers' beliefs and hence seems to be taste-based. When possible, few workers change their identity. However, the mere possibility of changing identities erodes the employers' trust towards ingroup workers and eliminates discrimination.

Decision makers frequently have a spokesperson communicate their decisions. In this paper, we address two questions. First, does it matter who communicates an unfair decision? Second, does it matter how the unfair decision is communicated? We conduct a modified dictator game experiment in which either the decision maker or a spokesperson communicates the decided allocation to recipients, who then determine whether to punish either of them. We find that receivers punish both the decision maker and the spokesperson more often, and more heavily, for unfair allocations communicated by the spokesperson if there is room for shifting blame. The increased punishment results from the messenger’s style of delivery: spokespersons are more likely than decision makers to express emotional regret instead of rational need. Receivers seem to punish the former style of communication because they view it as an attempt to shift blame. Our results establish more generally that the design of communication schemes shapes relationships among organizational members. Data and the online appendix are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2782 . This paper was accepted by Uri Gneezy, behavioral economics.

We conduct a laboratory experiment to study how, after a history of decay, cooperation in a repeated voluntary contribution game can be revived in an enduring way. Simply starting the repeated game over—a simple fresh start—leads to an initial increase of cooperation, but to a subsequent new decay. Motivated by cooperation decay in organizations we study the potential of three interventions of triggering higher and sustained cooperation, which take place at the same time as a restart. Surprisingly, we find that the detailed explanation of the causes of the decay in cooperation of Fischbacher and Gächter (Am Econ Rev 100:541–556, 2010) combined with an advice on how to prevent decay do not have an effect beyond that of just starting over. In contrast, a one-way free form communication message sent by the leader to the followers strongly revives cooperation. We find evidence that repeated free form communication by the leader further strengthens the reviving effect on cooperation. Combining the two previous interventions does not outperform the pure effect of communication. Our content analysis reveals that leader communication is more people oriented than the expert advice.

We conduct a laboratory experiment to study how advice by a more experienced and better-informed person affects an individual's entry into a real-effort tournament and the gender gap. Our experiment is motivated by the concerns raised by approaching the gender gap through affirmative action policies. Overall, advice improves the entry decision of subjects, in that forgone earnings due to wrong entry decisions go significantly down. The improvements are mainly driven by increased entry of strong-performing women, who also become more confident, and reduced entry of weak-performing men. We find that the overall gender gap persists even though it disappears among low and strong performers. The persistence is due to an emerging gender gap among intermediate performers driven by women (men) following more the advice to stay out of (enter) the tournament in this performance group. This paper was accepted by Uri Gneezy, behavioral economics.

We conduct a laboratory experiment to study how, after a history of decay in cooperation, organizations can revive cooperation in a repeated voluntary contribut