Nav: Home

Our social judgments reveal a tension between morals and statistics

January 02, 2019

People make statistically-informed judgments about who is more likely to hold particular professions even though they criticize others for the same behavior, according to findings published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

"People don't like it when someone uses group averages to make judgments about individuals from different social groups who are otherwise identical. They perceive that person as not only lacking in goodness, but also lacking in intelligence," says psychology researcher Jack Cao of Harvard University. "But when it comes to making judgments themselves, these people make the same type of judgment that they had so harshly criticized in others."

"This is important because it suggests that the distance between our values and the people we are is greater than we might think," Cao adds. "Otherwise, people would not have made judgments in a way that they found to be morally bankrupt and incompetent in others."

Say, for example, you hear about a man and a woman who both performed surgery - only one of them is a doctor, but which one? From a statistical standpoint, you would consider the fact that there are more men who are doctors than there are women who are doctors; you might also think about the fact that not all people who perform surgery are doctors. From a moral standpoint, you may believe that men and women are equally capable of being doctors. How would you answer?

Cao and coauthors Mahzarin Banaji of Harvard University and Max Kleiman-Weiner of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology hypothesized that people would experience a tension between the statistical approach and the moral approach. The researchers conducted a series of online experiments to test this hypothesis.

In one study, 199 participants learned that a man and a woman had performed surgery. They indicated whether the man was less, equally, or more likely to be a doctor than the woman was. They then learned about another person, Person X, who determined that the man was more likely to be a doctor. Using 7-point rating scales, they indicated how fair, just, accurate, and intelligent they thought Person X was.

The vast majority of participants, 93%, reported that the man and woman were equally likely to be doctors. And they tended to view Person X as not only unfair and unjust, but also inaccurate and unintelligent for stating that the man was more likely to be a doctor.

The results were similar in another online study, in which participants learned about a man and a woman who worked in a hospital, one of whom was a doctor and the other a nurse. Again, the majority of participants (91%) reported that the chance that the man was the doctor was equal to the chance that the woman was. When X made the statistically-based judgement that there was a higher chance of the man being the doctor, they viewed X as unfair, inaccurate, and unintelligent; in this situation, they also shared less money with X when given the opportunity to do so.

However, participants tended to make the statistically-based judgment themselves when they actually estimated the likelihood that a given person who performed surgery was a doctor versus a nurse. That is, they estimated likelihood of the person being a doctor was higher when the person in question was a man as opposed to when the person was a woman.

Despite this, they still criticized Person X for making the same statistically-informed judgment they had made.

Additional findings suggest that participants showed a similar pattern of decision making when the target individual was a pilot. Intriguingly, participants did not endorse the egalitarian judgment or criticize Person X for making a statistical judgment when the target individual was a butcher, firefighter, or construction worker

Cao and colleagues note that all of these experiments were conducted with online participants; however, research suggests that online samples produce data similar to those collected from lab-based samples.

Ultimately, the research reveals a discrepancy between how we perceive own social judgments versus the judgments that others make. The findings may have particular implications in domains such as law, business, education, and healthcare, where "a disparity between values and actions has significant consequences," Cao explains.
-end-
All data and materials have been made publicly available via the OpenScience Framework. This article has received the badges for Open Data and Open Materials.

For more information about this study, please contact: Jack Cao at jackcao@fas.harvard.edu.

The article abstract is available online at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797618805750

The APS journal Psychological Science is the highest ranked empirical journal in psychology. For a copy of the article "People Make the Bayesian Judgment They Criticize in Others" and access to other Psychological Science research findings, please contact Anna Mikulak at 202-293-9300 or amikulak@psychologicalscience.org.

Association for Psychological Science

Related Cao Articles:

New imaging analysis pipeline could aid in drug and vaccine development
A new paper introduces a method to effectively analyze data from lattice light-sheet microscopy, used to closely examine individual cells, such as T-cells, in 4D.
Stretchable supercapacitors to power tomorrow's wearable devices
Researchers have engineered a novel type of supercapacitor that maintains full functionality even when stretched to eight times its original size.
Precision mirrors poised to improve sensitivity of gravitational wave detectors
Deformable mirrors, which are used to shape and control laser light, have a surface made of tiny mirrors that can each be moved, or actuated, to change the overall shape of the mirror.
Connecting interferon, neuroinflammation and synapse loss in Alzheimer's disease
Interferon-mediated inflammation in brains of mouse models of Alzheimer's disease triggers synapse loss key to neurodegeneration.
Mayo Clinic researchers clarify how cells defend themselves from viruses
A protein known to help cells defend against infection also regulates the form and function of mitochondria, according to a new paper in Nature Communications.
'Swiss cheese' bones could be cause of unexplained low back pain
In experiments with genetically engineered and old mice, Johns Hopkins Medicine researchers say they have added to evidence that the vast majority of low back pain in people may be rooted in an overgrowth of pain-sensing nerves into spinal cartilaginous tissue.
Computational 'match game' identifies potential antibiotics
Computational biologists at Carnegie Mellon University have devised a software tool that can play a high-speed 'Match Game' to identify bioactive molecules and the microbial genes that produce them so they can be evaluated as possible antibiotics and other therapeutic agents.
System can minimize damage when self-driving vehicles crash
Engineers have developed decision-making and motion-planning technology to limit injuries and damage when self-driving vehicles are involved in unavoidable crashes.
U of M research discovers link between stress and circadian clock health
New research from the University of Minnesota Medical School found a little stress can make the circadian clock run better and faster.
Bladder drug linked to atherosclerosis in mice
A drug used in the treatment of overactive bladder can accelerate atheroclerosis in mice, researchers at Karolinska Institutet in Sweden report in a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
More Cao News and Cao Current Events

Trending Science News

Current Coronavirus (COVID-19) News

Top Science Podcasts

We have hand picked the top science podcasts of 2020.
Now Playing: TED Radio Hour

Making Amends
What makes a true apology? What does it mean to make amends for past mistakes? This hour, TED speakers explore how repairing the wrongs of the past is the first step toward healing for the future. Guests include historian and preservationist Brent Leggs, law professor Martha Minow, librarian Dawn Wacek, and playwright V (formerly Eve Ensler).
Now Playing: Science for the People

#565 The Great Wide Indoors
We're all spending a bit more time indoors this summer than we probably figured. But did you ever stop to think about why the places we live and work as designed the way they are? And how they could be designed better? We're talking with Emily Anthes about her new book "The Great Indoors: The Surprising Science of how Buildings Shape our Behavior, Health and Happiness".
Now Playing: Radiolab

The Third. A TED Talk.
Jad gives a TED talk about his life as a journalist and how Radiolab has evolved over the years. Here's how TED described it:How do you end a story? Host of Radiolab Jad Abumrad tells how his search for an answer led him home to the mountains of Tennessee, where he met an unexpected teacher: Dolly Parton.Jad Nicholas Abumrad is a Lebanese-American radio host, composer and producer. He is the founder of the syndicated public radio program Radiolab, which is broadcast on over 600 radio stations nationwide and is downloaded more than 120 million times a year as a podcast. He also created More Perfect, a podcast that tells the stories behind the Supreme Court's most famous decisions. And most recently, Dolly Parton's America, a nine-episode podcast exploring the life and times of the iconic country music star. Abumrad has received three Peabody Awards and was named a MacArthur Fellow in 2011.