An illusion of unfairness in random coin flips.

IF 6.4 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Rémy A Furrer, Timothy D Wilson, Daniel T Gilbert
{"title":"An illusion of unfairness in random coin flips.","authors":"Rémy A Furrer, Timothy D Wilson, Daniel T Gilbert","doi":"10.1037/pspa0000447","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Random procedures, such as coin flips, are used to settle disputes and allocate resources in a fair manner. Even though the outcome is random, we hypothesized that people would be sensitive to features of the process that make it seem unfair, that is, who gets to call heads or tails and flip the coin. In 11 studies (<i>N</i> = 5,925) participants competed against another participant for a positive or negative outcome, determined by a physical or virtual coin flip. The independent variable was who called heads or tails and flipped the coin: the participant or their opponent. When participants lost the flip, we found an illusion of unfairness: They reported that the process was less fair, were less pleased with their outcome, and found the other person less likable when their opponent flipped the coin. When participants won the flip, they thought it was less fair, and they felt guiltier when they had flipped the coin. We present evidence that these fairness judgments were based on both illusory procedural control (the person who flips the coin appears to have an unfair advantage by virtue of executing the flip before the outcome is known) and illusory outcome control (the belief that the flipper can influence the outcome of the flip). Further, the illusion of unfairness appears to be a quick, intuitive process that is not easily corrected. We discuss the implications of these findings for research on procedural justice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of personality and social psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000447","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Random procedures, such as coin flips, are used to settle disputes and allocate resources in a fair manner. Even though the outcome is random, we hypothesized that people would be sensitive to features of the process that make it seem unfair, that is, who gets to call heads or tails and flip the coin. In 11 studies (N = 5,925) participants competed against another participant for a positive or negative outcome, determined by a physical or virtual coin flip. The independent variable was who called heads or tails and flipped the coin: the participant or their opponent. When participants lost the flip, we found an illusion of unfairness: They reported that the process was less fair, were less pleased with their outcome, and found the other person less likable when their opponent flipped the coin. When participants won the flip, they thought it was less fair, and they felt guiltier when they had flipped the coin. We present evidence that these fairness judgments were based on both illusory procedural control (the person who flips the coin appears to have an unfair advantage by virtue of executing the flip before the outcome is known) and illusory outcome control (the belief that the flipper can influence the outcome of the flip). Further, the illusion of unfairness appears to be a quick, intuitive process that is not easily corrected. We discuss the implications of these findings for research on procedural justice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

随机抛硬币时产生的不公平错觉。
采用掷硬币等随机程序来解决争端和公平分配资源。尽管结果是随机的,但我们假设人们会对过程中看起来不公平的特征很敏感,也就是说,谁能说出正面或反面,谁能抛硬币。在11项研究中(N = 5,925),参与者与另一名参与者竞争,通过物理或虚拟硬币投掷来决定积极或消极的结果。自变量是谁说正面还是反面,谁掷硬币:参与者还是他们的对手。当参与者掷硬币失败时,我们发现了一种不公平的错觉:他们报告说,这个过程不那么公平,对自己的结果不太满意,当对手抛硬币时,他们觉得对方不那么讨人喜欢。当参与者赢得抛硬币时,他们认为这是不公平的,当他们抛硬币时,他们会感到更内疚。我们提供的证据表明,这些公平判断是基于虚幻的程序控制(投掷硬币的人由于在结果已知之前执行投掷而似乎具有不公平的优势)和虚幻的结果控制(相信投掷硬币的人可以影响投掷的结果)。此外,不公平的错觉似乎是一个快速、直观的过程,不容易纠正。我们讨论了这些发现对程序正义研究的启示。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
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
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
3.90%
发文量
250
期刊介绍: Journal of personality and social psychology publishes original papers in all areas of personality and social psychology and emphasizes empirical reports, but may include specialized theoretical, methodological, and review papers.Journal of personality and social psychology is divided into three independently edited sections. Attitudes and Social Cognition addresses all aspects of psychology (e.g., attitudes, cognition, emotion, motivation) that take place in significant micro- and macrolevel social contexts.
×
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