Perceived Fairness and Consequences of Affirmative Action Policies.

This article investigates the perceived fairness and consequences of three affirmative action (AA) quota policies in competitive tournaments, each favoring individuals disadvantaged due to discrimination, low productivity, or self-chosen short working time. Using a laboratory experiment with a real-effort grid task, the study finds that affirmative action favoring discriminated individuals is perceived as the fairest, followed by policies favoring short working time, while policies favoring low productivity are not seen as fairer than no affirmative action. Higher fairness perceptions correlate with increased willingness to compete and reduced retaliation against favored winners, highlighting the importance of fairness perceptions for the effectiveness of AA policies. The study also shows that none of the AA policies reduce overall willingness to compete or productivity, except that favoring short working time lowers winners’ output, and that post-competition teamwork is unaffected by AA policies. These findings suggest that clearly communicating the rationale behind affirmative action to enhance perceived fairness is crucial for their acceptance and success.