ABSTRACT
This study explores the intersection of race and gender in workplace discrimination, particularly through the lens of prototypicality, using data from the popular television show Shark Tank. It investigates how the racial and gender identities of entrepreneurs influence negotiation outcomes, with a specific emphasis on the variations in the types of deals they secure and their acceptance rates. By drawing on various theories, the research delves into the mechanisms that sustain inequalities in entrepreneurial negotiations.
Previous studies have highlighted that prototypicality plays a crucial role in discrimination, with White men and women of color often benefiting more in workplace conflicts. Research also emphasizes how systemic biases and cognitive shortcuts influence decision-making in uncertain situations, typically reinforcing existing social hierarchies. This study expands on these findings by analyzing real-world negotiations to highlight the concrete impacts of intersectionality.
The results indicate that White men were offered the most favorable deals, while women of color encountered a wide range of offers, from very advantageous to extremely unfavorable. White women and men of color were more likely to receive poor deals, with White women often accepting them. These results are consistent with previous literature on intersectional discrimination and illustrate the significant impact of prototypicality on negotiation dynamics. This research highlights the ongoing presence of biases and their consequences for equity in both entrepreneurial and professional environments.

INTRODUCTION
Today, we continue to see discrimination based on identity, particularly regarding race and gender, in various aspects of our lives. Specifically, the disparities are abundantly clear in the workforce as people continue to discuss the harms of workplace discrimination. It is often assumed that White people have more advantages compared to other racial groups. Similarly, men tend to have more advantages than other gender identities.
However, Ponce de León discusses the effects of prototypicality in her paper “Invisible Discrimination.” Prototypicality refers “to the extent to which a person is representative of a given category, with more prototypical group members sharing a greater number of underlying attributes with the superordinate group than less prototypical group members (e.g., Rosch, 1973, 1975, 1978; Rosch, Mervis, Gray, Johnson, & Boyes-Braem, 1976)” (Ponce de León and Rosette, 2022: 785). White women are prototypical for White people, whereas Black men are prototypical for Black people. In her study, she reviews its impacts in workplace discrimination by setting up studies in which participants respond to stereotype association questions. The results demonstrate that non-prototypical people were more likely to receive financial remedies for workplace discrimination than prototypical workers.
In this paper, the same question of workplace discrimination is presented by collecting and analyzing data from numerous episodes of Shark Tank. Shark Tank is a popular American TV series in which entrepreneurs pitch their businesses and convince the sharks to invest in them. The investors evaluate their pitches and both parties negotiate to come to a deal.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Social Dominance Theory (SDT) offers a way to understand the complex dynamics of intergroup relations, both structurally and individually. The research by Sidanius and Pratto emphasize how societies are hierarchically organized, with dominant groups maintaining their power through legitimizing myths and systemic discrimination. These hierarchies are upheld by forces such as laws and ideologies that reinforce dominance. Conversely, mechanisms like social justice policies work to reduce these hierarchies. What sets SDT apart from other theories is its integration of psychological, cultural, political, and biological factors to explain dominance among groups (Sidanius and Pratto, 1999).
Phillips Cutright investigates global inequality, highlighting economic, political, and social policies as key contributors. His cross-national analysis shows that democratic governance and strong social welfare systems play a significant role in reducing inequality. Additionally, historical events such as colonization have lasting effects on disparities. While Cutright’s macro-level perspective aligns with SDT in recognizing the institutional roots of inequality, it places greater emphasis on structural economic and political elements rather than individual-level factors like Social Dominance Orientation (Cutright, 1967).
Nicholas C. Barberis’ review of Prospect Theory (PT) highlights its significance in economics and behavioral science. Created by Kahneman and Tversky, PT challenges the conventional models of rational decision-making by focusing on concepts like reference dependence, loss aversion, and probability weighting. In contrast to SDT and Cutright’s research, PT delves into individual cognitive biases in uncertain situations, providing valuable insights into economic decision-making rather than societal hierarchies or structures (Barberis, 2012).
Stephen P. Borgatti and Daniel S. Halgin discuss how network structures influence both individual and group behavior. Theories surrounding networks examine how they form, while theories within networks look at their impacts. Important ideas such as centrality and clustering help explain how resources are accessed and how influence is distributed. Network Theory connects with SDT and Institutional Theory by exploring how these dynamics play out in various contexts (Borgatti and Halgin, 2013)
John W. Meyer and Brian Rowan’s research in neo-institutionalism emphasizes that organizations often implement formal structures to achieve legitimacy, frequently separating these from their actual practices. Institutional myths—cultural norms viewed as rational—motivate this adoption. This theory aligns with SDT by examining how symbolic adherence to societal norms helps maintain power structures. However, it differs by concentrating on organizational legitimacy instead of wider intergroup hierarchies (Meyer and Rowan, 2021).

SHARK TANK STUDY METHODS
To collect the data for this study, I began by watching more than twenty episodes of Shark Tank. For each episode, I recorded the product pitched, the entrepreneur’s gender and racial identity, the amount sought and stake offered, the valuation requested, each negotiation offer made by both the sharks and the entrepreneur, the racial and gender identity of the sharks making offers, and the pitch’s outcome. When a deal was made, I also calculated its valuation. Then, I researched similar businesses or products to find their valuation ‘A’ grades. As a result, I could compare the deal they received to the market value and determine if the deal was good, bad, or fair.
Next, I coded each entrepreneur’s data into a table to clearly compare pitches which allowed me to search for patterns in my data. (See table)

Next, I created two additional tables. To clearly evaluate the results, I converted the data into percentages to calculate the proportions of each scenario. (See table)

SHARK TANK STUDY RESULTS
The first chart presents data on the types of deals offered, examined based on the evaluation the investor or shark gave for a business compared to the market rate. The above data shows that the proportion of bad deals was higher for White women and men of color, whereas White men and women of color received a higher proportion of good deals. Furthermore, men of color and White women received the fairest deals compared to their counterparts.
The second chart examines whether the entrepreneur accepted a worse or better deal. The data demonstrates that White men accepted worse deals more often than better ones; men of color never accepted worse deals and accepted better deals half of the time; White women accepted worse deals half of the time and never accepted better deals; and women of color accepted both better and worse deals at the same rate.
Based on these results, six key findings emerge, each accompanied by explanations from the literature review.
Key Finding #1: White men receive the highest proportion of good deals among all demographics.
White men are frequently seen as the "default" or typical leaders in various societal and workplace settings, as noted by Ponce de León and Rosette (2022). Their prevalence in these positions strengthens positive biases that provide them with the best opportunities. This advantage may stem from the combination of their race (White) and gender (male), which corresponds with societal expectations of competence and authority.
Key Finding #2: White men tend to accept more deals overall, whether good or bad.
The readiness of White men to consider various deals highlights their societal privilege, as the repercussions of agreeing to a "bad" deal are lessened by their structural advantages. Ponce de León and Rosette (2022) found that this tendency to take risks corresponds with societal pressures for men—particularly White men—to embrace confident and assertive approaches, even in the face of uncertain outcomes.
Key Finding #3: White men avoid neutral deals, favoring only extremes, and are more likely to gamble after one deal.
Ponce de León and Rosette (2022) explore the notion that White men frequently possess the confidence and societal support to engage in high-risk, high-reward strategies. Their avoidance of neutral deals implies a preference for seeking gains or taking substantial risks. The fact that they are willing to gamble after one deal reflects a confidence that is reinforced by ongoing systemic validation of their choices.
Key Finding #4: Men of color are less risk-seeking than White men; they accept good and fair deals but avoid bad ones.
Men of color, although frequently left out of the advantages given to White men, tend to be strategic in their decision-making, as noted by Ponce de León and Rosette (2022). They focus on securing good and fair deals while steering clear of unfavorable ones to reduce risks. This behavior may stem from their understanding of the societal and professional consequences they could encounter if they fail, making a cautious approach to risk more sensible.
Key Finding #5: Bad deals are accepted by White women; they rarely accept good deals and get penalized while negotiating.
White women might feel societal pressure to value harmony over assertiveness, which can result in them settling for unfavorable agreements just to keep relationships intact or to steer clear of conflict. Their reluctance to accept beneficial deals may arise from a fear of being seen as "too ambitious" or stepping outside traditional gender roles. Ponce de León and Rosette (2022) illustrate that the consequences they encounter in negotiations highlight the systemic biases faced by women who assert themselves in male-dominated environments.
Key Finding #6: Women of color (WOC) receive extreme offers and often accept fair or even bad deals, showing that their negotiation outcomes can be both highly favorable and unfavorable.
Women of color find themselves in a distinct intersectional space, confronting both racial and gender biases. They frequently encounter extreme offers—either excessively favorable or extremely unfavorable—highlighting views of their nontraditional roles. Their choices to accept fair or poor deals may arise from a need to strategically manage these biases, as shown in the work of Ponce de León and Rosette (2022). In negotiations, the results can be starkly contrasting: they might either shatter stereotypes to obtain better deals or face harsher penalties than their counterparts.

CONCLUSION
In this paper, I observe the question of workplace discrimination based on racial and gender identity and how marginalized groups often sacrifice social positions to obtain other opportunities. Specifically, I analyze discrimination in the entrepreneurial and investment sector by collecting data from the many episodes of the American TV show, Shark Tank.
The results indicate that White men and women of color secured more good deals, while men of color and White women were more often offered bad deals. Also, White men, men of color, and women of color accepted more good deals than bad deals, which makes it clear that they were offered better deals. However, White women never accepted better deals and instead often accepted worse deals, which highlights that they often received worse deals in negotiations.
Despite the increase in entrepreneurs among women, we see that there are more entrepreneurs who are men, which can be linked to these results. The bias that leaks in during negotiations often favors men over women. Hence, it is evident that my results offer an explanation for certain inequalities that continue to exist in the entrepreneurial world.
My data from Shark Tank seeks to understand the intersectionality of discrimination based on race and gender. The entrepreneurs who pitch their ideas publicly aim to secure opportunities for growth in their businesses. Since the Sharks do not always have clear precedents to base their decisions on and must instead rely on their past experience and knowledge, this creates uncertain conditions where bias can infiltrate and impact the outcomes. For instance, it is anticipated that racial stereotypes could influence the Sharks’ decisions about which entrepreneurs to invest in.
Despite this expectation, my data demonstrates that non-prototypical entrepreneurs received more and better deals. These results are consistent with findings from Ponce de León and Rosette (2022). In their studies, although workplace discrimination claims were evaluated using more objective criteria—since they can be measured and the appropriate consequences applied—intersectional prototypicality still played a significant role in the outcomes: White men and women of color continue to have advantages over their counterparts. Thus, it is clear that regardless of the context or setting, prototypicality remains a prominent and stable factor in intersectional discrimination.

REFERENCE LIST
Barberis, Nicholas. Thirty Years of Prospect Theory in Economics: A Review and Assessment, Dec. 2012, https://doi.org/10.3386/w18621
Borgatti, Steve, and Daniel Halgin. “On Network Theory.” SSRN, 6 May 2013, papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2260993
Cutright, Phillips. “Inequality: A Cross-National Analysis.” American Sociological Review, vol. 32, no. 4, 1967, pp. 562–78. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2091024
De Leon, Rebecca Ponce, and Ashleigh Shelby Rosette. “‘invisible’ discrimination: Divergent Outcomes for the nonprototypicality of black women.” Academy of Management Journal, vol. 65, no. 3, June 2022, pp. 784–812, https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2020.1623
Meyer, John W., and Brian Rowan. “Institutionalized organizations:” The New Economic Sociology, 13 Apr. 2021, pp. 86–110, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1f886rp.6
Sidanius, Jim, and Felicia Pratto. Social Dominance, 28 July 1999, https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139175043