View in EDS

An Illusion of Unfairness in Random Coin Flips.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: An Illusion of Unfairness in Random Coin Flips.
Authors: Furrer, Rémy A.1,2,3 (AUTHOR) raf4ev@virginia.edu, Wilson, Timothy D.1 (AUTHOR), Gilbert, Daniel T.4 (AUTHOR)
Source: Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. Sep2025, Vol. 129 Issue 3, p496-508. 13p.
Subject Terms: *EMPIRICAL research, *STOCHASTIC processes, PROCEDURAL justice, FAIRNESS, CONTROL (Psychology), CONTROL groups, STATISTICAL bias
Abstract: Random procedures, such as coin flips, are used to settle disputes and allocate resources in a fair manner. Even though the outcome is random, we hypothesized that people would be sensitive to features of the process that make it seem unfair, that is, who gets to call heads or tails and flip the coin. In 11 studies (N = 5,925) participants competed against another participant for a positive or negative outcome, determined by a physical or virtual coin flip. The independent variable was who called heads or tails and flipped the coin: the participant or their opponent. When participants lost the flip, we found an illusion of unfairness: They reported that the process was less fair, were less pleased with their outcome, and found the other person less likable when their opponent flipped the coin. When participants won the flip, they thought it was less fair, and they felt guiltier when they had flipped the coin. We present evidence that these fairness judgments were based on both illusory procedural control (the person who flips the coin appears to have an unfair advantage by virtue of executing the flip before the outcome is known) and illusory outcome control (the belief that the flipper can influence the outcome of the flip). Further, the illusion of unfairness appears to be a quick, intuitive process that is not easily corrected. We discuss the implications of these findings for research on procedural justice. Statement of Limitations: The participants were residents of the United States; thus, we cannot generalize to people from other cultures. Second, future research is needed to see whether the illusion of unfairness would be found with random procedures other than physical and virtual coin flips. Third, participants were paired with an opponent they had never met and knew little about. It may be easier to blame an opponent for one's misfortune and like them less when they are a blank slate. Fourth, in all studies, participants who flipped the coin were also the ones who were given the choice to pick heads or tails. Future research should investigate whether the illusion of unfairness is driven by the fact that the other person got to call heads/tails, got to flip the coin, or both. Fifth, future research should investigate whether seeing the other person flip the coin seems unfair because the other person controlled the procedure that determined the outcome, because it lowered participants' subjective odds that they would win the toss, or both. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Journal of Personality & Social Psychology is the property of American Psychological Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Business Source Index
Description
Abstract:Random procedures, such as coin flips, are used to settle disputes and allocate resources in a fair manner. Even though the outcome is random, we hypothesized that people would be sensitive to features of the process that make it seem unfair, that is, who gets to call heads or tails and flip the coin. In 11 studies (N = 5,925) participants competed against another participant for a positive or negative outcome, determined by a physical or virtual coin flip. The independent variable was who called heads or tails and flipped the coin: the participant or their opponent. When participants lost the flip, we found an illusion of unfairness: They reported that the process was less fair, were less pleased with their outcome, and found the other person less likable when their opponent flipped the coin. When participants won the flip, they thought it was less fair, and they felt guiltier when they had flipped the coin. We present evidence that these fairness judgments were based on both illusory procedural control (the person who flips the coin appears to have an unfair advantage by virtue of executing the flip before the outcome is known) and illusory outcome control (the belief that the flipper can influence the outcome of the flip). Further, the illusion of unfairness appears to be a quick, intuitive process that is not easily corrected. We discuss the implications of these findings for research on procedural justice. Statement of Limitations: The participants were residents of the United States; thus, we cannot generalize to people from other cultures. Second, future research is needed to see whether the illusion of unfairness would be found with random procedures other than physical and virtual coin flips. Third, participants were paired with an opponent they had never met and knew little about. It may be easier to blame an opponent for one's misfortune and like them less when they are a blank slate. Fourth, in all studies, participants who flipped the coin were also the ones who were given the choice to pick heads or tails. Future research should investigate whether the illusion of unfairness is driven by the fact that the other person got to call heads/tails, got to flip the coin, or both. Fifth, future research should investigate whether seeing the other person flip the coin seems unfair because the other person controlled the procedure that determined the outcome, because it lowered participants' subjective odds that they would win the toss, or both. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:00223514
DOI:10.1037/pspa0000447