结果偏见胜过政治部落主义吗?

IF 1.9 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY Translational Issues in Psychological Science Pub Date : 2022-09-01 DOI:10.1037/tps0000333
Ivo Gyurovski, E. Lester
{"title":"结果偏见胜过政治部落主义吗?","authors":"Ivo Gyurovski, E. Lester","doi":"10.1037/tps0000333","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Outcome bias occurs when people evaluate decision quality based on the outcome rather than the intentions of the decision maker. We replicate these findings and extend them to the realms of policy and politics. Approximately equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats judged policy decisions aimed at ameliorating the deleterious effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. We manipulated the affiliation of the decider (Republican vs. Democrat) and the aim of the policy (benefits health vs. benefits the economy;benefits health but hurts the economy vs. benefits the economy but hurts health). The results revealed that policy decisions aimed at addressing health problems or aimed at repairing the economy without negative externalities in other spheres of life were evaluated solely as a function of outcome in which successful outcomes generated significantly greater quality ratings than failures. However, judgments of policy decisions aimed at helping one sphere of life but hurting another (i.e., business closures) were qualified by significant interactions with the political party affiliation of the decision maker and that of the participant. Republicans' responses show evidence for outcome bias while favoring Republican deciders. In contrast, Democrats exhibited a greater degree of outcome bias while favoring decisions that prioritized health over the economy relative to decisions that prioritized the economy over health. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved) Impact Statement What is the significance of this article for the general public?-Even though the COVID-19 pandemic is a health problem, a large proportion of people treated it as a political issue for which voters' political affiliation determined their response to the pandemic. Dealing effectively with the pandemic requires a unified response in a situation where health and the economy are frequently at loggerheads. Here we examined how voters think about policy decisions that aimed to address either public health or economic concerns stemming from the pandemic. In half of the cases, policies aimed at addressing one issue were detrimental to another. In general, people judge policy decisions as a function of their outcomes;however, they are more likely to be influenced by their political considerations when policies addressing one issue end up being detrimental to another. Specifically, Republicans' responses show evidence for outcome bias while favoring Republican deciders. In contrast, Democrats exhibited a greater degree of outcome bias while favoring decisions that prioritized health over the economy relative to decisions that prioritized the economy over health. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)","PeriodicalId":29959,"journal":{"name":"Translational Issues in Psychological Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does outcome bias trump political tribalism?\",\"authors\":\"Ivo Gyurovski, E. Lester\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/tps0000333\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Outcome bias occurs when people evaluate decision quality based on the outcome rather than the intentions of the decision maker. We replicate these findings and extend them to the realms of policy and politics. Approximately equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats judged policy decisions aimed at ameliorating the deleterious effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. We manipulated the affiliation of the decider (Republican vs. Democrat) and the aim of the policy (benefits health vs. benefits the economy;benefits health but hurts the economy vs. benefits the economy but hurts health). The results revealed that policy decisions aimed at addressing health problems or aimed at repairing the economy without negative externalities in other spheres of life were evaluated solely as a function of outcome in which successful outcomes generated significantly greater quality ratings than failures. However, judgments of policy decisions aimed at helping one sphere of life but hurting another (i.e., business closures) were qualified by significant interactions with the political party affiliation of the decision maker and that of the participant. Republicans' responses show evidence for outcome bias while favoring Republican deciders. In contrast, Democrats exhibited a greater degree of outcome bias while favoring decisions that prioritized health over the economy relative to decisions that prioritized the economy over health. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved) Impact Statement What is the significance of this article for the general public?-Even though the COVID-19 pandemic is a health problem, a large proportion of people treated it as a political issue for which voters' political affiliation determined their response to the pandemic. Dealing effectively with the pandemic requires a unified response in a situation where health and the economy are frequently at loggerheads. Here we examined how voters think about policy decisions that aimed to address either public health or economic concerns stemming from the pandemic. In half of the cases, policies aimed at addressing one issue were detrimental to another. In general, people judge policy decisions as a function of their outcomes;however, they are more likely to be influenced by their political considerations when policies addressing one issue end up being detrimental to another. Specifically, Republicans' responses show evidence for outcome bias while favoring Republican deciders. In contrast, Democrats exhibited a greater degree of outcome bias while favoring decisions that prioritized health over the economy relative to decisions that prioritized the economy over health. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)\",\"PeriodicalId\":29959,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Translational Issues in Psychological Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Translational Issues in Psychological Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000333\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational Issues in Psychological Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000333","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

当人们根据结果而不是决策者的意图来评估决策质量时,就会出现结果偏差。我们复制了这些发现,并将其扩展到政策和政治领域。大约同等数量的共和党人和民主党人判断旨在缓解新冠肺炎疫情有害影响的政策决定。我们操纵了决策者的隶属关系(共和党与民主党)和政策目标(有益健康与有益经济;有益健康但损害经济与有益经济但损害健康)。结果表明,旨在解决健康问题或旨在在生活其他领域不产生负外部性的情况下修复经济的政策决定仅作为结果的函数进行评估,其中成功的结果产生的质量评级明显高于失败的结果。然而,对旨在帮助一个生活领域但伤害另一个领域(即企业倒闭)的政策决策的判断,是通过与决策者和参与者的政党关系进行重大互动来确定的。共和党人的回应显示了结果偏见的证据,同时支持共和党的决策者。相比之下,民主党人表现出更大程度的结果偏见,同时支持将健康置于经济之上的决策,而不是将经济置于健康之上的决策。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)影响声明这篇文章对公众的意义是什么-尽管新冠肺炎大流行是一个健康问题,但很大一部分人将其视为一个政治问题,选民的政治派别决定了他们对大流行的反应。在卫生和经济经常发生冲突的情况下,有效应对疫情需要统一应对。在这里,我们研究了选民如何看待旨在解决疫情引发的公共卫生或经济问题的政策决定。在一半的情况下,旨在解决一个问题的政策对另一个问题不利。一般来说,人们根据政策决定的结果来判断政策决定;然而,当解决一个问题的政策最终对另一个问题不利时,他们更有可能受到政治考虑的影响。具体来说,共和党人的回应显示了结果偏见的证据,同时支持共和党的决策者。相比之下,民主党人表现出更大程度的结果偏见,同时支持将健康置于经济之上的决策,而不是将经济置于健康之上的决策。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Does outcome bias trump political tribalism?
Outcome bias occurs when people evaluate decision quality based on the outcome rather than the intentions of the decision maker. We replicate these findings and extend them to the realms of policy and politics. Approximately equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats judged policy decisions aimed at ameliorating the deleterious effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. We manipulated the affiliation of the decider (Republican vs. Democrat) and the aim of the policy (benefits health vs. benefits the economy;benefits health but hurts the economy vs. benefits the economy but hurts health). The results revealed that policy decisions aimed at addressing health problems or aimed at repairing the economy without negative externalities in other spheres of life were evaluated solely as a function of outcome in which successful outcomes generated significantly greater quality ratings than failures. However, judgments of policy decisions aimed at helping one sphere of life but hurting another (i.e., business closures) were qualified by significant interactions with the political party affiliation of the decision maker and that of the participant. Republicans' responses show evidence for outcome bias while favoring Republican deciders. In contrast, Democrats exhibited a greater degree of outcome bias while favoring decisions that prioritized health over the economy relative to decisions that prioritized the economy over health. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved) Impact Statement What is the significance of this article for the general public?-Even though the COVID-19 pandemic is a health problem, a large proportion of people treated it as a political issue for which voters' political affiliation determined their response to the pandemic. Dealing effectively with the pandemic requires a unified response in a situation where health and the economy are frequently at loggerheads. Here we examined how voters think about policy decisions that aimed to address either public health or economic concerns stemming from the pandemic. In half of the cases, policies aimed at addressing one issue were detrimental to another. In general, people judge policy decisions as a function of their outcomes;however, they are more likely to be influenced by their political considerations when policies addressing one issue end up being detrimental to another. Specifically, Republicans' responses show evidence for outcome bias while favoring Republican deciders. In contrast, Democrats exhibited a greater degree of outcome bias while favoring decisions that prioritized health over the economy relative to decisions that prioritized the economy over health. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
期刊最新文献
Supplemental Material for Telehealth Perceptions and Experiences of Persons With Parkinson’s Disease During the COVID-19 Pandemic Supplemental Material for More Questions Than Answers: Ethical Considerations at the Intersection of Psychology and Generative Artificial Intelligence Supplemental Material for Overheard and Understood: A Systematic Review of Children’s Learning From Overhearing Social cohesion and volunteering: Correlates, causes, and challenges. Psychology and social cohesion.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1