Pretty weak, tendentious study mainly designed to flatter the experimenter's priors.
Doesn't compare "advantaged" group (here assumed to simply be "white (non-Hispanic)") to any others.
Claims to find "misperceptions" when a reasonable-person real-world interpretation of any of the questions, even if they are designed to exclude any loss to the respondents' category, will necessarily apply assumptions about resource-limitations.
For example, one example given in the text is a proposed policy, “Several banks propose increasing the total amount of mortgage loans to Latino homebuyers by $7.3 billion and not changing the total amount of mortgage loan funding to White homebuyers”.
People who live in the real world know such a policy might not "increase equality".
Sometimes, generous loans offered due to trendy policies – like in the leadup to the 2008 crisis – trap the borrowers with unsustainable debts. Other times, they meet the ostensible targets – "more to Latinos" – without actually reaching the disadvantaged. (Only Latinos who are already well-off can work the system.)
Many people of all 'advantagedness' categories will reject the idea of targeting loans by ethnicity, preferring as a matter of morality that such decisions should be ethnicity-blind. They might even choose to suffer tangible resource losses for themselves & their 'ingroup', to punish attempts to set up a resource-allocation on unfair precepts, as in 'ultimatum game' experiments.
And, no matter how carefully the question-conditions are wordsmithed to suggest a 'free lunch' for the preferred-category at no cost to the respondents – "not changing the total amount of mortgage loan funding to White homebuyers" – in the real world an extra $7.3B has to come from somewhere. Reserving it for a specific ethnicity means it's taken from everyone else – not just from the study's 'advantaged' but every other (possibly-even-more-needy) program/group.
(Other conditions only described in the supplementary materials are even worse in imagining free-money for pay-raises, and free-jobs that don't displace anyone else, as if magically from-the-sky.)
The experimenters' childlike wishing-away of tradeoffs thus makes their desired result fall automatically out of the interaction between their fanciful scenarios & respondents' real-world familiarity with how such proposed policies truly work.
Doesn't compare "advantaged" group (here assumed to simply be "white (non-Hispanic)") to any others.
Claims to find "misperceptions" when a reasonable-person real-world interpretation of any of the questions, even if they are designed to exclude any loss to the respondents' category, will necessarily apply assumptions about resource-limitations.
For example, one example given in the text is a proposed policy, “Several banks propose increasing the total amount of mortgage loans to Latino homebuyers by $7.3 billion and not changing the total amount of mortgage loan funding to White homebuyers”.
People who live in the real world know such a policy might not "increase equality".
Sometimes, generous loans offered due to trendy policies – like in the leadup to the 2008 crisis – trap the borrowers with unsustainable debts. Other times, they meet the ostensible targets – "more to Latinos" – without actually reaching the disadvantaged. (Only Latinos who are already well-off can work the system.)
Many people of all 'advantagedness' categories will reject the idea of targeting loans by ethnicity, preferring as a matter of morality that such decisions should be ethnicity-blind. They might even choose to suffer tangible resource losses for themselves & their 'ingroup', to punish attempts to set up a resource-allocation on unfair precepts, as in 'ultimatum game' experiments.
And, no matter how carefully the question-conditions are wordsmithed to suggest a 'free lunch' for the preferred-category at no cost to the respondents – "not changing the total amount of mortgage loan funding to White homebuyers" – in the real world an extra $7.3B has to come from somewhere. Reserving it for a specific ethnicity means it's taken from everyone else – not just from the study's 'advantaged' but every other (possibly-even-more-needy) program/group.
(Other conditions only described in the supplementary materials are even worse in imagining free-money for pay-raises, and free-jobs that don't displace anyone else, as if magically from-the-sky.)
The experimenters' childlike wishing-away of tradeoffs thus makes their desired result fall automatically out of the interaction between their fanciful scenarios & respondents' real-world familiarity with how such proposed policies truly work.