Explicit discrimination and ingroup favoritism, but no implicit biases in hypothetical triage decisions during COVID-19

Abstract Disturbingly realistic triage scenarios during the COVID-19 pandemic provide an opportunity for studying discrimination in moral reasoning. Biases and favoritism do not need to be explicit and overt, but can remain implicit and covert. In addition to assessing laypeople’s propensity for eng...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Nico Gradwohl, Hansjörg Neth, Helge Giese, Wolfgang Gaissmaier
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Nature Portfolio 2024-01-01
Series:Scientific Reports
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-50385-w
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1846158685621977088
author Nico Gradwohl
Hansjörg Neth
Helge Giese
Wolfgang Gaissmaier
author_facet Nico Gradwohl
Hansjörg Neth
Helge Giese
Wolfgang Gaissmaier
author_sort Nico Gradwohl
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Disturbingly realistic triage scenarios during the COVID-19 pandemic provide an opportunity for studying discrimination in moral reasoning. Biases and favoritism do not need to be explicit and overt, but can remain implicit and covert. In addition to assessing laypeople’s propensity for engaging in overt discrimination, the present study examines whether they reveal implicit biases through seemingly fair random allocations. We present a cross-sectional online study comprising 6 timepoints and a total of 2296 participants. Each individual evaluated 19 hypothetical scenarios that provide an allocation dilemma between two patients who are in need of ventilation and differ only in one focal feature. Participants could either allocate the last ventilator to a patient, or opt for random allocation to express impartiality. Overall, participants exhibited clear biases for the patient who was expected to be favored based on health factors, previous ethical or caretaking behaviors, and in-group favoritism. If one patient had been pre-allocated care, a higher probability of keeping the ventilator for the favored patient indicates persistent favoritism. Surprisingly, the absence of an asymmetry in random allocations indicates the absence of covert discrimination. Our results demonstrate that laypeople’s hypothetical triage decisions discriminate overtly and show explicit biases.
format Article
id doaj-art-a9dddae9b4c84f54bb6b375842f9311a
institution Kabale University
issn 2045-2322
language English
publishDate 2024-01-01
publisher Nature Portfolio
record_format Article
series Scientific Reports
spelling doaj-art-a9dddae9b4c84f54bb6b375842f9311a2024-11-24T12:18:12ZengNature PortfolioScientific Reports2045-23222024-01-0114111010.1038/s41598-023-50385-wExplicit discrimination and ingroup favoritism, but no implicit biases in hypothetical triage decisions during COVID-19Nico Gradwohl0Hansjörg Neth1Helge Giese2Wolfgang Gaissmaier3Department of Psychology, University of KonstanzDepartment of Psychology, University of KonstanzDepartment of Psychology, University of KonstanzDepartment of Psychology, University of KonstanzAbstract Disturbingly realistic triage scenarios during the COVID-19 pandemic provide an opportunity for studying discrimination in moral reasoning. Biases and favoritism do not need to be explicit and overt, but can remain implicit and covert. In addition to assessing laypeople’s propensity for engaging in overt discrimination, the present study examines whether they reveal implicit biases through seemingly fair random allocations. We present a cross-sectional online study comprising 6 timepoints and a total of 2296 participants. Each individual evaluated 19 hypothetical scenarios that provide an allocation dilemma between two patients who are in need of ventilation and differ only in one focal feature. Participants could either allocate the last ventilator to a patient, or opt for random allocation to express impartiality. Overall, participants exhibited clear biases for the patient who was expected to be favored based on health factors, previous ethical or caretaking behaviors, and in-group favoritism. If one patient had been pre-allocated care, a higher probability of keeping the ventilator for the favored patient indicates persistent favoritism. Surprisingly, the absence of an asymmetry in random allocations indicates the absence of covert discrimination. Our results demonstrate that laypeople’s hypothetical triage decisions discriminate overtly and show explicit biases.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-50385-w
spellingShingle Nico Gradwohl
Hansjörg Neth
Helge Giese
Wolfgang Gaissmaier
Explicit discrimination and ingroup favoritism, but no implicit biases in hypothetical triage decisions during COVID-19
Scientific Reports
title Explicit discrimination and ingroup favoritism, but no implicit biases in hypothetical triage decisions during COVID-19
title_full Explicit discrimination and ingroup favoritism, but no implicit biases in hypothetical triage decisions during COVID-19
title_fullStr Explicit discrimination and ingroup favoritism, but no implicit biases in hypothetical triage decisions during COVID-19
title_full_unstemmed Explicit discrimination and ingroup favoritism, but no implicit biases in hypothetical triage decisions during COVID-19
title_short Explicit discrimination and ingroup favoritism, but no implicit biases in hypothetical triage decisions during COVID-19
title_sort explicit discrimination and ingroup favoritism but no implicit biases in hypothetical triage decisions during covid 19
url https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-50385-w
work_keys_str_mv AT nicogradwohl explicitdiscriminationandingroupfavoritismbutnoimplicitbiasesinhypotheticaltriagedecisionsduringcovid19
AT hansjorgneth explicitdiscriminationandingroupfavoritismbutnoimplicitbiasesinhypotheticaltriagedecisionsduringcovid19
AT helgegiese explicitdiscriminationandingroupfavoritismbutnoimplicitbiasesinhypotheticaltriagedecisionsduringcovid19
AT wolfganggaissmaier explicitdiscriminationandingroupfavoritismbutnoimplicitbiasesinhypotheticaltriagedecisionsduringcovid19