Identifying And Exploring Bias In Public Opinion On Scarce Resource Allocation During The COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic offers an opportunity to examine public opinion regarding the allocation of scarce medical resources. In this conjoint experiment on a nationally representative sample of US adults, we examined how a range of patient characteristics affect respondents' willingness to allocate a ventilator between two patients with equal likelihood of short-term survival and how this differs by respondents' attributes. Respondents were 5.5 percentage points less likely to allocate a ventilator to a patient with a disability than to a nondisabled patient. Disability bias was correlated with older age cohorts and higher education levels of respondents. Liberal and moderate respondents were more likely to give a ventilator to Black and Asian patients than to White patients. Conservatives were much less likely to allocate a ventilator to transgender patients than to cisgender patients. These findings demonstrate the importance of bias mitigation and civil rights enforcement in health policy making, especially under conditions of scarcity.

A change will do us good: threats diminish typical preferences for male leaders.

The current research explores role congruity processes from a new vantage point by investigating how the need for change might shift gender-based leadership preferences. According to role congruity theory, favorability toward leaders results from alignment between what is desired in a leadership role and the characteristics stereotypically ascribed to the leader. Generally speaking, these processes lead to baseline preferences for male over female leaders. In this research, the authors propose that a shift in gender-based leadership preferences will emerge under conditions of threat. Because the psychological experience of threat signals a need for change, individuals will favor candidates who represent new directions in leadership rather than consistency with past directions in leadership. Specifically, they find that threat evokes an implicit preference for change over stability (Experiment 1) and gender stereotypes align women with change but men with stability (Experiments 2a and 2b). Consequently, the typical preference for male leaders is diminished, or even reversed, under threat (Experiments 3 and 4). Moreover, the shift away from typical gender-based leadership preferences occurs especially among individuals who highly legitimize the sociopolitical system (Experiment 4), suggesting that these preference shifts might serve to protect the underlying system.

Experimental tests of an attitudinal theory of the gender gap in voting.

This research examined the hypothesis that gender gaps in voting stem from differences in the extent to which men and women agree with candidates' issue stances. Two initial experiments portraying candidates by their sex and attitudes and a third experiment that also included information about political party produced the predicted attitudinal gender-congeniality effect: Participants of each sex reported greater likelihood, compared with participants of the other sex, of voting for the candidate who endorsed positions typically favored more by their own sex than the other sex. In addition, this gender-congeniality effect was present among Republican and independent participants but absent among Democratic participants because Democratic men as well as women favored candidates who advocated the positions typically favored by women. Interpretation invoked the importance of group interest based on gender as an influence on women's voting.