Equalitarianism: A source of liberal bias

Bo M. Winegard, Cory Clark, Connor R. Hasty, Roy F. Baumeister
{"title":"Equalitarianism: A source of liberal bias","authors":"Bo M. Winegard, Cory Clark, Connor R. Hasty, Roy F. Baumeister","doi":"10.58408/issn.2992-9253.2023.01.01.00000008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent scholarship has challenged the long-held assumption in the social sciences that Conservatives are more biased than Liberals, yet little work deliberately explores domains of liberal bias. Here, we demonstrate that Liberals (some might call them Progressives) are particularly prone to bias about victims’ groups (e.g. women, Black people) and identify a set of beliefs that consistently predict this bias, termed Equalitarianism. Equalitarianism, we believe, stems from an aversion to inequality and a desire to protect relatively low status groups, and includes three interrelated beliefs: (1) demographic groups do not differ biologically; (2) prejudice is ubiquitous and explains existing group disparities; (3) society can, and should, make all groups equal in society. This leads to bias against information that portrays a perceived privileged group more favorably than a perceived victims’ group. Eight studies and twelve mini meta-analyses (n=3,274) support this theory. Liberalism was associated with perceiving certain groups as victims (Studies 1a-1b). In Studies 2-7 and meta-analyses, Liberals evaluated the same study as less credible when the results portrayed a privileged group (men and White people) more favorably than a victims’ group (women and Black people) than vice versa. Ruling out alternative explanations of normative reasoning, significant order effects in within-subjects designs in Study 6 and Study 7 (preregistered) suggest that Liberals believe they should not evaluate identical information differently depending on which group is portrayed more favorably, yet do so. In all studies, higher equalitarianism mediated the relationship between liberalism and lower credibility ratings when privileged groups were portrayed more favorably. Although not predicted a priori, meta-analyses also revealed Moderates to be the most balanced in their judgments. These findings do not indicate whether this bias is morally justifiable, only that it exists.","PeriodicalId":484348,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Open Inquiry in the Behavioral Sciences","volume":"239 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Open Inquiry in the Behavioral Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.58408/issn.2992-9253.2023.01.01.00000008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent scholarship has challenged the long-held assumption in the social sciences that Conservatives are more biased than Liberals, yet little work deliberately explores domains of liberal bias. Here, we demonstrate that Liberals (some might call them Progressives) are particularly prone to bias about victims’ groups (e.g. women, Black people) and identify a set of beliefs that consistently predict this bias, termed Equalitarianism. Equalitarianism, we believe, stems from an aversion to inequality and a desire to protect relatively low status groups, and includes three interrelated beliefs: (1) demographic groups do not differ biologically; (2) prejudice is ubiquitous and explains existing group disparities; (3) society can, and should, make all groups equal in society. This leads to bias against information that portrays a perceived privileged group more favorably than a perceived victims’ group. Eight studies and twelve mini meta-analyses (n=3,274) support this theory. Liberalism was associated with perceiving certain groups as victims (Studies 1a-1b). In Studies 2-7 and meta-analyses, Liberals evaluated the same study as less credible when the results portrayed a privileged group (men and White people) more favorably than a victims’ group (women and Black people) than vice versa. Ruling out alternative explanations of normative reasoning, significant order effects in within-subjects designs in Study 6 and Study 7 (preregistered) suggest that Liberals believe they should not evaluate identical information differently depending on which group is portrayed more favorably, yet do so. In all studies, higher equalitarianism mediated the relationship between liberalism and lower credibility ratings when privileged groups were portrayed more favorably. Although not predicted a priori, meta-analyses also revealed Moderates to be the most balanced in their judgments. These findings do not indicate whether this bias is morally justifiable, only that it exists.
平均主义:自由偏见的根源
最近的学术研究挑战了社会科学中长期以来的假设,即保守党比自由党更有偏见,但很少有研究有意探索自由派偏见的领域。在这里,我们证明了自由主义者(有些人可能称他们为进步主义者)特别容易对受害者群体(如妇女、黑人)产生偏见,并确定了一套一贯预测这种偏见的信念,称为平等主义。我们认为,平均主义源于对不平等的厌恶和保护地位相对较低群体的愿望,包括三个相互关联的信念:(1)人口群体在生物学上没有差异;(2)偏见普遍存在,解释了群体差异的存在;(3)社会能够而且应该使所有群体在社会中平等。这就导致了对信息的偏见,这些信息对一个被认为是特权群体的描述比被认为是受害者群体的描述更有利。8项研究和12项小型荟萃分析(n= 3274)支持这一理论。自由主义与将某些群体视为受害者有关(研究1a-1b)。在研究2-7和荟萃分析中,当结果对特权群体(男性和白人)的描述比对受害者群体(女性和黑人)的描述更有利时,自由党认为同一项研究的可信度更低,反之亦然。排除规范性推理的其他解释,研究6和研究7(预注册)中受试者内设计的显著顺序效应表明,自由主义者认为他们不应该根据哪个群体被描绘得更有利而对相同的信息进行不同的评估,但他们确实这样做了。在所有的研究中,当特权群体被描绘得更美好时,更高的平均主义介导了自由主义与较低可信度评级之间的关系。虽然没有先验预测,但元分析也显示温和派在他们的判断中是最平衡的。这些发现并没有表明这种偏见在道德上是否合理,只是表明它确实存在。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信