Disabled and Romani passengers face similar levels of discrimination but different levels of open hostility in the sharing economy.

This multimethod project investigates discrimination against members of two populous minority groups in the European Union: the Roma (numbering 6 million) and the disabled (numbering 100 million) on a leading Hungarian carpooling platform. In a field experiment, 1005 ride requests were sent to drivers, with passenger group membership (control, disabled, Roma) manipulated between participants. Widespread discrimination against both groups was apparent in significantly lower approval rates for disabled (56%) and Roma passengers (52%) relative to control (70%). Mechanisms driving anti-disabled and anti-Roma discrimination were probed using an experimental manipulation, natural language processing analysis of driver-passenger interactions, and an online survey (N = 398). Individuating information in the form of reviews did not mitigate unequal treatment, thus providing evidence against statistical (stereotype-based) discrimination. Militating against taste-based (attitudinal) discrimination, respondents reported negative attitudes toward Roma passengers but positive attitudes toward disabled passengers. Moreover, despite equivalent approval rates, disabled passengers were more likely to receive a response from drivers and received more polite responses than Roma passengers did. Overall, the observed patterns are most readily explained by intergroup emotions: Contempt toward Roma passengers likely engenders both passive and active harm, whereas pity toward disabled passengers likely engenders passive harm and active facilitation.

"Personally, I feel sorry, but professionally, I don't have a choice." Understanding the drivers of anti-Roma discrimination on the rental housing market.

The aim of our study is to assess the drivers of discriminatory behaviors of real-estate agents and private landlords toward prospective Roma tenants, relying on qualitative data from Hungary. Though there is a broad literature on the forms and frequency of discrimination, we know much less about the question of why people discriminate. Previous research suggests that discrimination on the basis of ethnicity is widespread in Hungary. To understand the drivers of discrimination, we analyzed: (a) the sources and justifications of discrimination of Roma people on the rental housing market among real-estate agents and private landlords, the actors making decisions about tenants (b) mapped the social embeddedness of discrimination, and (c) assessed the resilience of discriminatory intentions by analyzing the reactions to a 3-min advocacy video showing discrimination of Roma people on the rental housing market. We conducted and analyzed five online group discussions with 18 real estate agents and landlords advertising properties for rent in different regions of the country. Our qualitative study revealed that discrimination of Roma people is understood to be a widespread and socially acceptable practice driven by the need to avoid risks attributed to Roma tenants based on widely held stereotypes about them. We identified certain specificities in the justification and argumentation strategies of real-estate agents in comparison to private landlords. By providing counter-information presenting the perspective of Roma tenants, negative views could be challenged on the emotional level and also by shifting the group dynamics, strengthening the viewpoint of those without prejudice. We discuss our findings with regards to the possibilities of interventions against discrimination in societies in which neither social norms nor state institutions expect the equal treatment of the members of ethnic minority groups.

Social science. Publication bias in the social sciences: unlocking the file drawer.

We studied publication bias in the social sciences by analyzing a known population of conducted studies--221 in total--in which there is a full accounting of what is published and unpublished. We leveraged Time-sharing Experiments in the Social Sciences (TESS), a National Science Foundation-sponsored program in which researchers propose survey-based experiments to be run on representative samples of American adults. Because TESS proposals undergo rigorous peer review, the studies in the sample all exceed a substantial quality threshold. Strong results are 40 percentage points more likely to be published than are null results and 60 percentage points more likely to be written up. We provide direct evidence of publication bias and identify the stage of research production at which publication bias occurs: Authors do not write up and submit null findings.