Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38409287›Full record

ArticleNature human behaviour2024

The relationship between political ideology and judgements of bias in distributional outcomes.

Jin Kim, Gal Zauberman

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nature human behaviour, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Reply to Vogt et al.: What does it mean that a phenomenon generalizes?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jin KimThe D'Amore-McKim School of Business, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA. jin.kim1@northeastern.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-5013-3958
Gal ZaubermanDepartment of Marketing, Yale School of Management, New Haven, CT, USA. gal.zauberman@yale.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-5416-9555

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We examine judgements of bias in distributional outcomes. Such judgements are often based on imbalance in distributional outcomes, namely, the under- or over-representation of a target group relative to some baseline. Using data from 26 studies (N = 14,925), we test how these judgements of bias vary with the target group's characteristics (traditionally dominant or non-dominant) and the observer's political ideology (liberal or conservative). We find that conservatives set a higher threshold for recognizing bias against traditionally non-dominant targets (women, Black people, immigrants), as compared with liberals. Conversely, liberals set a higher threshold for recognizing bias against traditionally dominant targets (men, white people, native-born citizens), as compared with conservatives. However, these relationships between political ideology and judgements of bias diminish when the targets are unknown or ideologically irrelevant. These findings emphasize the context-dependency of bias judgements and underscore the importance of stimulus sampling and appropriate selection of controls.

Indexed as

Emigrants and ImmigrantsJudgmentBiasFemaleHumansMalePoliticsWhite People

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.