As if the implicit biases of reflexive, strong emotions and prescriptive (moral) preferences were not enough when it comes to afflicting detached examination. Now there is acknowledgement of social pressure to choose between antinomy-like stances, no gradient (and suspension of judgment) in between, and perhaps this cultural impetus at times urging a selection to be in effect even beforehand (motivated reasoning). 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Neutrality isn't a safe strategy on controversial issues, new research shows
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1110238
INTRO: Researchers Rachel Ruttan and Katherine DeCelles of the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management are anything but neutral on neutrality. The next time you're tempted to play it safe on a hot-button topic, their evidence-based advice is to consider saying what you really think.
That's because their recent research, based on more than a dozen experiments with thousands of participants, reveals that people take a dim view of others' professed neutrality on controversial issues, rating them just as morally suspect as those expressing an opposing viewpoint, if not worse.
"Neutrality gives you no advantage over opposition," says Prof. Ruttan, an associate professor of organizational behaviour and human resource management with an interest in moral judgment and prosocial behaviour. “You're not pleasing anyone."
That finding was consistent whether research participants were asked to imagine themselves in a social media context or at a family holiday dinner, on issues from immigration to cannabis legalization. It didn't matter if the neutral individual was a politician, a work colleague or a family member. Participants still viewed that person as less moral than one whose opinion matched their own.
Yet it was a different story when the tables were turned. Participants overwhelmingly opted to be publicly neutral when faced with a controversial issue themselves.
When asked what opinion they would express in an informal workplace conversation about affirmative action, 59% said they would be neutral, despite only 23% privately holding that view. Even those paid for good advice repeated the pattern. A sub-study of about 100 public relations professionals found most would tell a public-facing client to be neutral on safe injection sites if asked their position in a media interview.
That double standard -- where neutrality is okay for me, but not for you -- may have to do with something called the actor-observer gap, says Prof. Ruttan... (MORE - details, no ads)
_
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Neutrality isn't a safe strategy on controversial issues, new research shows
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1110238
INTRO: Researchers Rachel Ruttan and Katherine DeCelles of the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management are anything but neutral on neutrality. The next time you're tempted to play it safe on a hot-button topic, their evidence-based advice is to consider saying what you really think.
That's because their recent research, based on more than a dozen experiments with thousands of participants, reveals that people take a dim view of others' professed neutrality on controversial issues, rating them just as morally suspect as those expressing an opposing viewpoint, if not worse.
"Neutrality gives you no advantage over opposition," says Prof. Ruttan, an associate professor of organizational behaviour and human resource management with an interest in moral judgment and prosocial behaviour. “You're not pleasing anyone."
That finding was consistent whether research participants were asked to imagine themselves in a social media context or at a family holiday dinner, on issues from immigration to cannabis legalization. It didn't matter if the neutral individual was a politician, a work colleague or a family member. Participants still viewed that person as less moral than one whose opinion matched their own.
Yet it was a different story when the tables were turned. Participants overwhelmingly opted to be publicly neutral when faced with a controversial issue themselves.
When asked what opinion they would express in an informal workplace conversation about affirmative action, 59% said they would be neutral, despite only 23% privately holding that view. Even those paid for good advice repeated the pattern. A sub-study of about 100 public relations professionals found most would tell a public-facing client to be neutral on safe injection sites if asked their position in a media interview.
That double standard -- where neutrality is okay for me, but not for you -- may have to do with something called the actor-observer gap, says Prof. Ruttan... (MORE - details, no ads)
_
