The existence bias.

Abstract

The authors demonstrate that people treat the mere existence of something as evidence of its goodness. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate that an existing state is evaluated more favorably than an alternative. Study 3 shows that imagining an event increases estimates of its likelihood, which in turn leads to favorable evaluation; the more likely that something will be, the more positively it is evaluated. Study 4 shows that the more a form is described as prevalent, the more aesthetically attractive is that form. This indicates a causal relationship between aesthetic judgments and existence in a domain lacking choice among alternatives. Study 5 extends the existence bias to gustatory evaluation and demonstrates that the effect is not moderated by valence. Together these studies suggest that mere existence leads to assumptions of goodness; the status quo is seen as good, right, attractive, tasty, and desirable.

Households’ responses to spousal job loss: ‘all change’ or ‘carry on as usual’?

“…Socio-psychological understandings of why people are averse to change suggest that what we 'have' is generally preferable to what we 'might have', especially in the context of uncertainty (Eidelman et al, 2009;Samuelson and Richard, 1988). Maintenance of the status quo is seen as desirable, particularly where established patterns of behaviour have been formed (Eidelman et al, 2010).…”

Beyond Discrete Categories: Studying Multiracial, Intersex, and Transgender Children Will Strengthen Basic Developmental Science

“…Taken together, these findings suggest that categorical thinking enhances stereotypical reasoning and obscures perception of potential similarities among those who do not belong to the same category, a potentially self-reinforcing effect that could raise unwarranted confidence in the reality of the discrete conception itself. Indeed, for both adults (Eidelman, Crandall, & Pattershall, 2009;Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler, 1991) and children (Tworek & Cimpian, in press), there is a pervasive tendency to believe that the way things are (including the way they are described and categorized) is the way things ought to be. Thus, once we have conceptualized categories as dichotomous or have decided that the dichotomous options are normative, departures from that dichotomy may come to be seen as deviant and therefore bad, just as other contingent and even arbitrary decisions come to acquire normative weight merely by being presented as settled fact (Eidelman et al, 2009).…”

“…Indeed, for both adults (Eidelman, Crandall, & Pattershall, 2009;Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler, 1991) and children (Tworek & Cimpian, in press), there is a pervasive tendency to believe that the way things are (including the way they are described and categorized) is the way things ought to be. Thus, once we have conceptualized categories as dichotomous or have decided that the dichotomous options are normative, departures from that dichotomy may come to be seen as deviant and therefore bad, just as other contingent and even arbitrary decisions come to acquire normative weight merely by being presented as settled fact (Eidelman et al, 2009). If so, individuals who deviate from these normative poles might be perceived as deviant or problematic.…”

The difficulty of recognizing less obvious forms of group-based discrimination

“…Research indicates that individuals believe in a just world (see Lerner, 2003) and they often assume that policies and procedures are appropriate and fair, simply because they exist. Individuals are meaning-makers, and are thus likely to develop a rationale for why the familiar status quo represents the way things should be (Eidelman, Crandall, & Pattershall, 2009;Eidelman, Pattershall, & Crandall, 2010;Kunda, 1990). Indeed, research has shown that individuals are not likely to notice instances of ambiguous sexism unless DIFFICULTY OF RECOGNIZING DISCRIMINATION 5 they are paying deliberate attention to this task (Becker & Swim, 2011;Swim, Hyers, Cohen, & Ferguson, 2001).…”