My Linh Vu

All Publications

• Bias is not color blind: Ignoring gender and race leads to suboptimal selection decisions-A registered report. Journal of experimental psychology. General Rabinovitch, H., Vu, L., Bereby-Meyer, Y., Shalvi, S. 2025; 154 (12): 3552-3565

  Abstract

  Blindfolding-selecting candidates based on objective selection tests while avoiding personal information about their race and gender-is commonly used to mitigate bias in selection. Selection tests, however, often benefit people of a certain race or gender. In such cases, selecting the best candidates requires incorporating, rather than ignoring, the biasing factor. We examined people's preference for avoiding candidates' race and gender, even when fully aware that these factors bias the selection test. We put forward a novel prediction suggesting that paradoxically, due to their fear of appearing partial, people would choose not to reveal race and gender information, even when doing so means making suboptimal decisions. Across three experiments (N = 3,621), hiring professionals (and laypeople) were tasked with selecting the best candidate for a position when they could reveal the candidate's race and gender or avoid it. We further measured how fear for their social image corresponds with their decision, as well as how job applicants perceive such actions. The results supported our predictions, showing that more than 50% did not reveal gender and race information. By contrast, only 30% did not reveal situational biasing information-features of the situation rather than the individual-such as the time of day in which the selection test occurred. Those who did not reveal information expressed higher concerns for their social and self-image than those who decided to reveal. We conclude that decision-makers avoid personal biasing information to maintain a positive image, yet by doing so, they compromise fairness and accuracy alike. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

  View details for DOI 10.1037/xge0001870

  View details for PubMedID 41325155

• Reluctant altruism: Underlying mechanisms and global variations. Current opinion in psychology Vu, L., Molho, C. 2025; 66: 102107

  Abstract

  Altruistic decisions are central to civic engagement and humanitarian efforts. However, altruistic behavior is often context-dependent rather than consistent-the same individuals who act generously in one situation may behave selfishly in another. Here, we review research on this phenomenon, which we label reluctant altruism. We outline its various forms, from willful ignorance to the strategic avoidance of morally challenging decisions. We examine three key psychological drivers of reluctant altruism: (i) cognitive inattentiveness, (ii) guilt and self-image concerns, and (iii) shame and social-image concerns. We also review cross-cultural findings, highlighting robust evidence for willful ignorance across nations. Taken together, this literature offers a cautiously optimistic outlook: by thoughtfully designing decision-making environments, we can encourage reluctant individuals to act altruistically.

  View details for DOI 10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102107

  View details for PubMedID 40716380

• Giving (in) to help an identified person JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY Vu, L., Molho, C., Soraperra, I., Fiedler, S., Shalvi, S. 2024; 110

  View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jesp.2023.104557

  View details for Web of Science ID 001125702500001

• Ignorance by Choice: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Underlying Motives of Willful Ignorance and Its Consequences PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN Vu, L., Soraperra, I., Leib, M., van der Weele, J., Shalvi, S. 2023; 149 (9-10): 611-635

  Abstract

  People sometimes avoid information about the impact of their actions as an excuse to be selfish. Such "willful ignorance" reduces altruistic behavior and has detrimental effects in many consumer and organizational contexts. We report the first meta-analysis on willful ignorance, testing the robustness of its impact on altruistic behavior and examining its underlying motives. We analyze 33,603 decisions made by 6,531 participants in 56 different treatment effects, all employing variations of an experimental paradigm assessing willful ignorance. Meta-analytic results reveal that 40% of participants avoid easily obtainable information about the consequences of their actions on others, leading to a 15.6-percentage point decrease in altruistic behavior compared to when information is provided. We discuss the motives behind willful ignorance and provide evidence consistent with excuse-seeking behaviors to maintain a positive self-image. We investigate the moderators of willful ignorance and address the theoretical, methodological, and practical implications of our findings on who engages in willful ignorance, as well as when and why. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

  View details for DOI 10.1037/bul0000398

  View details for Web of Science ID 001098124200004

  View details for PubMedID 38713751

• Psychological science for a responsible sharing economy CURRENT OPINION IN PSYCHOLOGY Shalvi, S., Mol, J. M., Molho, C., Linh Vu, Leib, M., Soraperra, I. 2022; 44: 100-105

  Abstract

  The sharing economy is fueled by trust, which allows strangers to cooperate. To share responsibly, one needs to be aware of the various consequences sharing has on interacting and third parties. When transparency about such consequences is lacking, mutual trust among interacting parties may encourage people to cooperate and share, in turn, creating unintended negative impacts. Psychologists have long studied trust and cooperation, yet few insights from psychological science have been used to understand the sharing economy. Here, we propose that evoking trust may paradoxically increase motivated information processing leading people to share irresponsibly by ignoring the negative consequences sharing has on others. We review three conditions under which evoking trust may lead to irresponsible sharing: ethical blind spots, willful ignorance, and misinformation. We propose that transparent information is key to enable and encourage responsible sharing. More psychological research is needed to better understand how this flourishing, trust-based industry can be shaped to encourage safe, cooperative, and responsible sharing.

  View details for DOI 10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.032

  View details for Web of Science ID 000707446900011

  View details for PubMedID 34601400

• A qualitative study of GP, nurse and practice manager views on using targeted case-finding to identify patients with COPD in primary care NPJ PRIMARY CARE RESPIRATORY MEDICINE Summers, R. H., Sharmeen, T., Lippiett, K., Gillett, K., Astles, C., Linh Vu, Stafford-Watson, M., Bruton, A., Thomas, M., Wilkinson, T. 2017; 27: 49

  Abstract

  'Finding the missing millions' with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease became part of the Department of Health strategy for England in 2010. Targeted case-finding within primary care is one potential pro-active strategy, but currently little is known about the views of healthcare professionals on this approach. In this study, 36 healthcare professionals (12 GPs, 14 nurses, and 10 practice managers) from 34 UK practices participated in semi-structured telephone interviews about targeted case-finding. Interviews followed an interview guide, were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, coded and analysed using 'Framework Approach'. Most of those interviewed practiced opportunistic case-finding. The main perceived barriers to wider case-finding programmes were the resource implications associated with running such programmes and identifying more chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. Financial incentives, support from specialist clinicians, and comprehensive guidance were viewed as facilitators. While targeted case-finding is conceptually accepted by primary care staff, scepticism surrounding (1) the value of identifying those with mild disease and (2) the availability of effective targeted case-finding methods, may lead some to favour an opportunistic approach. Key concerns were a lack of unequivocal evidence for the relative benefits vs. disadvantages of diagnosing patients earlier, and resource constraints in an already over-burdened system. Barriers to practical implementation of case-finding studies may be addressed with financial, human and educational resources, such as additional staff to undertake searches and perform spirometry tests, and practical and educational support from specialist teams.SUPPORT NEEDED TO IDENTIFY THOSE UNDIAGNOSED: Additional staff and resources would facilitate targeted searches for patients showing symptoms of early-stage chronic lung disease. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) costs the UK economy billions of pounds each year, yet disparate symptoms mean patients aren't always diagnosed in the early, treatable stages of the disease. Recent guidelines suggest introducing 'targeted case-finding', where symptomatic patients with known risk factors are identified and approached for testing by doctors. Rachael Summers and colleagues at the University of Southampton analyzed the opinions of healthcare professionals on implementing targeted case-finding in primary care. While most of the 36 professionals interviewed agreed that diagnosing COPD earlier had clear benefits, concerns were raised regarding negative patient responses and increased stress for patients, alongside the added strain on already stretched resources. Employing independent staff and enhancing resources may facilitate such a program.

  View details for DOI 10.1038/s41533-017-0049-3

  View details for Web of Science ID 000409360400001

  View details for PubMedID 28851860

  View details for PubMedCentralID PMC5575077