Do policy instruments that restrict social identity expression increase economic cooperation?

IF 2.8 2区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS European Economic Review Pub Date : 2024-09-10 DOI:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2024.104847
{"title":"Do policy instruments that restrict social identity expression increase economic cooperation?","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.euroecorev.2024.104847","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Recent public and corporate policies restricting social identity expression, such as the face-covering restrictions in many European countries, presume that prominent signals of our social identity differences drive division even when inference about social identity is unaffected. Social identity theory predicts that limiting identity expression could positively or negatively affect how groups interact. We use an experiment to test whether a treatment that bans displaying an identity pin affects cooperation in public goods provision. Our subjects are U.K. residents who were in favor of leaving or remaining in the European Union. Each subject is simultaneously in two different yet economically identical environments that are distinguished only by the social identities of the group members. They play two simultaneous one-shot public goods games, one with others who share their identity (in-group public good), and one with a mixture of Leavers and Remainers (mixed-group public good). The political identities of all subjects and the structure of each group are known by everyone. Our treatments vary whether there exists a ban on displaying a Leaver/Remainer identity pin to others and whether Leavers or Remainers are the majority identity in the mixed groups. We find that banning pinning increases contributions to the mixed group when Leavers are the majority. These increases can be explained by changes in beliefs rather than the notion that shared group identity per se affects behavior. These setting- and identity-specific results suggest that policies designed to promote integration should be examined in the context in which they will be applied.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48389,"journal":{"name":"European Economic Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292124001764/pdfft?md5=84aa33d4589fc4c45cbd0a97da8ace51&pid=1-s2.0-S0014292124001764-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Economic Review","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292124001764","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent public and corporate policies restricting social identity expression, such as the face-covering restrictions in many European countries, presume that prominent signals of our social identity differences drive division even when inference about social identity is unaffected. Social identity theory predicts that limiting identity expression could positively or negatively affect how groups interact. We use an experiment to test whether a treatment that bans displaying an identity pin affects cooperation in public goods provision. Our subjects are U.K. residents who were in favor of leaving or remaining in the European Union. Each subject is simultaneously in two different yet economically identical environments that are distinguished only by the social identities of the group members. They play two simultaneous one-shot public goods games, one with others who share their identity (in-group public good), and one with a mixture of Leavers and Remainers (mixed-group public good). The political identities of all subjects and the structure of each group are known by everyone. Our treatments vary whether there exists a ban on displaying a Leaver/Remainer identity pin to others and whether Leavers or Remainers are the majority identity in the mixed groups. We find that banning pinning increases contributions to the mixed group when Leavers are the majority. These increases can be explained by changes in beliefs rather than the notion that shared group identity per se affects behavior. These setting- and identity-specific results suggest that policies designed to promote integration should be examined in the context in which they will be applied.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
限制社会身份表达的政策工具是否会增加经济合作?
最近限制社会身份表达的公共和企业政策,如许多欧洲国家的遮脸限制,假定我们社会身份差异的显著信号会导致分裂,即使对社会身份的推断不受影响。社会身份理论预测,限制身份表达会对群体互动产生积极或消极影响。我们通过一项实验来检验禁止展示身份徽章的处理是否会影响公共物品提供方面的合作。我们的实验对象是赞成脱欧或留在欧盟的英国居民。每个受试者同时处于两个不同但经济上完全相同的环境中,这两个环境的区别仅在于小组成员的社会身份。他们同时进行两场一次性公共产品博弈,一场是与与自己身份相同的人进行的博弈(群体内公共产品),另一场是与脱欧者和留欧者混合进行的博弈(混合群体公共产品)。所有主体的政治身份和每个群体的结构都是众所周知的。在混合群体中,是否禁止向他人展示离任者/留任者身份徽章,以及离任者或留任者是否是多数身份,都会影响我们的处理方法。我们发现,当混合群体中离开者占多数时,禁止别针会增加对混合群体的贡献。这些增加可以用信念的变化来解释,而不是共同的群体身份本身会影响行为这一概念。这些因环境和身份而异的结果表明,旨在促进融合的政策应在其适用的环境中加以研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
3.60%
发文量
170
期刊介绍: The European Economic Review (EER) started publishing in 1969 as the first research journal specifically aiming to contribute to the development and application of economics as a science in Europe. As a broad-based professional and international journal, the EER welcomes submissions of applied and theoretical research papers in all fields of economics. The aim of the EER is to contribute to the development of the science of economics and its applications, as well as to improve communication between academic researchers, teachers and policy makers across the European continent and beyond.
期刊最新文献
How good am I? Effects and mechanisms behind salient rank The inelastic demand for affirmative action Labour at risk A simple model of buyer–seller networks in international trade Voting on the flag of the Weimar Republic
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1