Worth the Risk? Greater Acceptance of Instrumental Harm Befalling Men than Women.

Autor: Graso M; Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, Department of Organisational Psychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS, Groningen, The Netherlands. m.graso@rug.nl., Reynolds T; Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA., Aquino K; Marketing and Behavioural Science Division, Sauder School of Business University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Archives of sexual behavior [Arch Sex Behav] 2023 Aug; Vol. 52 (6), pp. 2433-2445. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Mar 17.
DOI: 10.1007/s10508-023-02571-0
Abstrakt: Scientific and organizational interventions often involve trade-offs whereby they benefit some but entail costs to others (i.e., instrumental harm; IH). We hypothesized that the gender of the persons incurring those costs would influence intervention endorsement, such that people would more readily support interventions inflicting IH onto men than onto women. We also hypothesized that women would exhibit greater asymmetries in their acceptance of IH to men versus women. Three experimental studies (two pre-registered) tested these hypotheses. Studies 1 and 2 granted support for these predictions using a variety of interventions and contexts. Study 3 tested a possible boundary condition of these asymmetries using contexts in which women have traditionally been expected to sacrifice more than men: caring for infants, children, the elderly, and the ill. Even in these traditionally female contexts, participants still more readily accepted IH to men than women. Findings indicate people (especially women) are less willing to accept instrumental harm befalling women (vs. men). We discuss the theoretical and practical implications and limitations of our findings.
(© 2023. The Author(s).)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: