Ingroup favoritism overrides fairness when resources are limited

Focusing attention on others' negative emotions reduces the effect of social relationships on children's distributive behaviors

The present study investigates whether directing five- to six-year-old children's attention to hypothetical resource recipients that included familiar and non-familiar people would affect their favoritism toward a familiar person, as reflected in how they allocated resources. In Experiment 1, we instructed participants to give one of several stickers to another person or keep all the stickers for themselves. Under the control conditions, participants more frequently gave stickers to friends than to non-friends. However, when asked about others' emotions, they distributed stickers equally among friends and non-friends. Therefore, focusing on others' thoughts reduced participants' favoritism toward friends. Experiment 2 tested whether focusing on both emotional valences would affect favoritism toward a familiar person, as reflected in children's resource distribution choices. Experiment 2 was identical to Experiment 1, except we asked participants about the other person's emotional valence. When asked about others' negative emotions, participants distributed the stickers equally between themselves and others. However, when asked about others' positive emotions, they distributed more stickers to friends than to non-friends. Neither others' emotional valence nor group status affected the perceived intensity of their emotion or the participant's emotional state. These results suggest that children's favoritism toward friends can be reduced by encouraging them to think about others' negative emotional states.

Teenagers' but not young adults' beliefs about intrinsic interpersonal obligations for group members

Previous research has indicated that children perceive social category members as having intrinsic obligations toward each other, which shape their expectations for social interactions. However, it is unclear whether teenagers (aged 13 to 15) and young adults (aged 19 to 21) continue to hold such beliefs, given their increased experience with group dynamics and external social rules. To explore this question, three experiments were conducted with a total of 360 participants (N = 180 for each age group). Experiment 1 examined negative social interactions using different methods in two sub-experiments, while Experiment 2 focused on positive social interactions to examine whether participants viewed social category members as intrinsically obligated to avoid harming each other and to offer assistance. Results revealed that teenagers evaluated within-group harm and non-help as unacceptable, regardless of external rules, whereas they viewed between-group harm and non-help as both acceptable and unacceptable, depending on the presence of external rules. Conversely, young adults considered both within-group and between-group harm/non-help as more acceptable if an external rule permitted such behavior. These findings suggest that teenagers believe that members of a social category are intrinsically obligated to help and not harm each other, whereas young adults believe that individual social interactions are constrained mainly by external rules. That is, teenagers hold stronger beliefs than young adults about intrinsic interpersonal obligations to group members. Thus, in-group moral obligations and external rules contribute differently to the evaluation and interpretation of social interactions at different developmental stages.

Let Them Be the Judge of That: Bias Cascade in Elite Dressage Judging

Sport performances judged subjectively often suffer from systematic errors due to biases, with the sport of equestrian dressage being no exception. This study examines whether international dressage judges display systematic errors while evaluating elite horse-rider combinations. Data from seven 5* Grand Prix dressage events between May 2022 and April 2023 were analyzed (510 judges' scores) using Multivariable Linear Regression Analysis. Five predictor variables-Home, Same Nationality, Compatriot, FEI Ranking and Starting Order-were studied in relation to Total Dressage Score (TS). The model accounted for 44.1% of TS variance; FEI Ranking, Starting Order, Compatriot, Same Nationality, and Home were statistically significant (p < 0.001). Judges exhibited nationalistic and patriotism-by-proxy biases, awarding significantly higher scores to riders from their countries (p < 0.001). FEI Ranking and Starting Order also influenced scores significantly (p < 0.001). These biases, combined, created a cascade effect benefiting a specific group of riders. To address this, measures should be taken to develop a more objective judging system that is based on unequivocal, transparent and evidence-based criteria and supports the continuous development of a fair, sustainable, equine welfare orientated sport that fosters societal acceptance.

Gender bias in special issues: evidence from a bibliometric analysis

Even though the majority of psychologists are women, they are outnumbered by men in senior academic ranks. One reason for this representation bias in academia is that men favor other men in decision-making, especially when the stakes are high. We tested the possibility of such bias in a bibliometric analysis, in which we coded editors' and authors' gender in regular and special issues, the latter considered of higher scientific prominence. We examined all special issues from five prominent scientific outlets in the fields of personality and social psychology published in the twenty-first century. Altogether, we analyzed 1911 articles nested in 93 sets comprising a special issue and a neighboring regular issue treated as a control condition. For articles published in special (but not regular) issues, when there were more men editors, more men first-authored and co-authored the work. This pattern suggests how gender bias can be perpetuated within academia and calls for revising the editorial policies of leading psychology journals.

Effects of Ingroup Identification on Ingroup Favouritism during Fairness Norm Enforcement

People tend to voluntarily sacrifice their own interests to reject unfair proposals, and this behaviour is affected by group affiliation. While group bias is a well-established phenomenon, its direction is still unclear, and little attention has been given to possible moderating factors. In two studies, we manipulate participants' ingroup identification and investigate whether and how individuals with various levels of ingroup identification react differently to unfairness from ingroups and outgroups during an incentivized (Study 1, N = 46) and hypothetical (Study 2, N = 332) ultimatum game. The results show that participants display a strong preference for their own group. High identifiers tend to accept unfair proposals from ingroups compared to outgroups, whereas this effect is nonsignificant for low identifiers, especially for moderately unfair treatment (offer 7:3). Moreover, higher identification tends to be accompanied by higher ingroup positive expectation, which then leads to greater ingroup favouritism for an offer of 7:3. These results imply that ingroup identification can enhance group favouritism during fairness norm enforcement through ingroup positive expectation.