Do bystanders always see more than the players? Exploring Solomon's paradox through meta-analysis
Lin, Zheng and Wang meta-analysed the research on Solomon's paradox, combining six studies and twenty effect sizes to ask whether the pattern holds and how large it is. It does hold for interpersonal conflict, at a small to moderate size, which is a more restrained figure than the original demonstrations suggest. The moderator analysis found that how the reasoning was measured and who the participants were changed the size of the effect, while culture and the type of conflict did not reliably do so. The authors are direct about the limitation this creates: with six studies, mostly from a narrow range of countries, the finding that culture does not matter is a weak result rather than a strong one, and they call for work across more varied cultural settings before the conclusion is trusted. This vault cites it alongside the original experiments so the size of the effect is stated honestly.
Lin, Zheng and Wang meta-analysed the research on Solomon's paradox, combining six studies and twenty effect sizes to ask whether the pattern holds and how large it is. It does hold for interpersonal conflict, at a small to moderate size, which is a more restrained figure than the original demonstrations suggest. The moderator analysis found that how the reasoning was measured and who the participants were changed the size of the effect, while culture and the type of conflict did not reliably do so. The authors are direct about the limitation this creates: with six studies, mostly from a narrow range of countries, the finding that culture does not matter is a weak result rather than a strong one, and they call for work across more varied cultural settings before the conclusion is trusted. This vault cites it alongside the original experiments so the size of the effect is stated honestly.
Written from the abstract, OpenAlex.
What our sources record
Reproduced as it was written when this source was checked, figures and all.
14, 1181187. Six studies, 20 effect sizes, d = 0.317 for interpersonal conflict. The confidence interval as reported in the published summary is internally inconsistent with the point estimate and is deliberately not printed here or in the body.
Where we use it
- Why You Are Kinder to Your Friends Than to Yourself, Why We Care
Reliability of this reference
The link below is the right work, with one detail that does not line up. Title, venue, year and article number match exactly, but the author list in the published record is Lin, H., Zheng, H. & Wang, F., not Xu, W., Zhang, K. & Wang, F. as given in the citation. Only the last author matches. Worth opening before quoting a figure from it.
The source
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1181187
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1181187