Yay!! 🤩

Thank you Aleija!! 😊

Here's the paper: doi.org/10.1037/xge0.... It was so so fun to think and write with this group! Stay tuned for more 🥳

Our findings support the account that people flexibly evaluate disparate impact policies in response to context, and we identify strong justifications as a lever that promotes moral acceptance of these policies across development. (6/7)

Finally, politically conservative adults were more accepting of the disparate impact policy when it impacted girls, but not when it impacted boys (a school club only admitted children with long hair). (5/7)

But, when provided with strong justification for the policy ("the short-hair rule prevents harm"), acceptance of the policy increased. A circular justification ("because I make the rules") did not increase acceptance. (4/7)

We presented a disparate impact policy that indirectly discriminated against girls (a school club only admitted kids with short hair). Participants (5-10-yos and adults) negatively evaluated the disparate impact policy starting at 7 years old, strengthening into adulthood. (3/7)

Some examples of disparate impact policies are voter ID laws and height/strength requirements in the workplace. We propose that these policies are often morally ambiguous, so people judge them flexibly depending on evidence of intentional discrimination. (2/7)