Donhatai Harris ([email protected])
 DEFINITION: Favouritism = Preferential
treatment given to a person or group at the
expense of another.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS:
1.
What is the social norm regarding
favouritism?
2. Can the prevalence of a particular
norm regarding favouritism lead to
different levels of favouritism across
countries?
3. Can different social groups follow
different social norms?
Consider 3 types of social norms and
enforcement mechanisms: [1] In-group
bias vs.[2] Egalitarian vs. [3]Out-group Bias
Norms
 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN:
7 players, 1 decision-maker, 3 in-group
members & 3 out-group members. 4
Treatments: T0 (no punishment = baseline);
T1 (in-group Punishment); T2 (out-group
Punishment); T3 (Third-party Punishment).
THE CHOICE SET: 8 options allocating
Tokens between ‘each’ member of in-group
& out-group. Focus on income distribution
effect (total pie is the same for all options,
except option H):
A(4,500:-1,500):
B(3,000:0):
In-group Favouritism
C(2,000:1,000):
D(1,500:1,500): Egalitarian option
E(1,000:2,000)
 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES:
Out-group favouritism
Hypothesis 1: The threat of social sanction F(0:3,000)
from the other in-group members is likely to G(-1,500:4,500)
increase favouritism behaviour (if the inH(0:0): Anti-Social/ opt-out option
group bias norm prevails).
THE RESULTS:
Hypothesis 2: The threat of social sanction
I. Strong ‘in-group bias norm’ in Thailand,
from the out-group is likely to deter
where threat of in-group punishment 
favouritism behaviour (if the egalitarian or
increases favouritism. But not in UK.
out-group bias norm prevails).
Hypothesis 3: The threat of social sanction II. No effect of threat of out-group
from an uninvolved third- punishment in Thailand, but in UK this
party could either increase reduces in-group favouritism & increases
option D egalitarian norm is enforced.
or decrease favouritism
behaviour (depending on III. Threat of 3rd Party punishment enforces in-group bias
which norm prevails)
norm in Thailand, but no effect in UK.