Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:01:01.751Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Social bias insights concern judgments rather than real-world decisions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2022

Michał Białek
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychology, Faculty of Historical and Pedagogical Sciences, University of Wrocław, 50-529 Wrocław, Poland. michal.bialek3@uwr.edu.pl
Igor Grossmann
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada. igor.grossmann@uwaterloo.ca

Abstract

Judgments differ from decisions. Judgments are more abstract, decontextualized, and bear fewer consequences for the agent. In pursuit of experimental control, psychological experiments on bias create a simplified, bare-bone representation of social behavior. These experiments resemble conditions in which people judge others, but not how they make real-world decisions.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ariely, D., & Norton, M. I. (2008). How actions create – Not just reveal – Preferences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(1), 1316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.10.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Białek, M., Turpin, M. H., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2019). What is the right question for moral psychology to answer? Commentary on Bostyn, Sevenhant, and Roets (2018). Psychological Science, 30(9), 13831385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618815171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
dos Santos, M. F., & Pereira, C. R. (2021). The social psychology of a selective national inferiority complex: Reconciling positive distinctiveness and system justification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 95, 104118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossmann, I., & Varnum, M. E. W. (2015). Social structure, infectious diseases, disasters, secularism, and cultural change in America. Psychological Science, 26(3), 311324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614563765.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Beyond WEIRD: Towards a broad-based behavioral science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 111135. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofman, J. M., Sharma, A., & Watts, D. J. (2017). Prediction and explanation in social systems. Science (New York, N.Y.), 355(6324), 486488. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal3856.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 90. https://doi.org/10.1086/208899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutcherson, C., Sharpinskyi, K., Varnum, M. E. W., Rotella, A., Wormley, A., Tay, L., & Grossmann, I. (2021). Behavioral scientists and laypeople misestimate societal effects of COVID-19. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/g8f9s.Google Scholar
Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881919. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varnum, M. E. W., & Grossmann, I. (2017). Cultural change: The how and the why. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 956972. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617699971.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yarkoni, T., & Westfall, J. (2017). Choosing prediction over explanation in psychology: Lessons from machine learning. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 11001122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617693393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed