Scientific and organizational interventions often involve trade-offs whereby they benefit some but entail costs to others (i.e., instrumental harm; IH). We hypothesized that the gender of the persons incurring those costs would influence intervention endorsement, such that people would more readily support interventions inflicting IH onto men than onto women. We also hypothesized that women would exhibit greater asymmetries in their acceptance of IH to men versus women. Three experimental studies (two pre-registered) tested these hypotheses. Studies 1 and 2 granted support for these predictions using a variety of interventions and contexts. Study 3 tested a possible boundary condition of these asymmetries using contexts in which women have traditionally been expected to sacrifice more than men: caring for infants, children, the elderly, and the ill. Even in these traditionally female contexts, participants still more readily accepted IH to men than women. Findings indicate people (especially women) are less willing to accept instrumental harm befalling women (vs. men). We discuss the theoretical and practical implications and limitations of our findings.

科学和组织干预通常涉及权衡，使一些人受益，但给另一些人带来成本（即工具性伤害；IH）。我们假设承担这些费用的人的性别会影响干预措施的认可，因此人们更容易支持对男性造成 IH 的干预措施，而不是女性。我们还假设，女性对 IH 的接受程度与男性相比会表现出更大的不对称性。三项实验研究（两项预先注册）测试了这些假设。研究 1 和研究 2 使用各种干预措施和背景为这些预测提供了支持。研究 3 使用传统上期望女性比男性做出更多牺牲的环境来测试这些不对称性的可能边界条件：照顾婴儿、儿童、老人和病人。即使在这些传统的女性环境中，参与者仍然比女性更容易接受男性的 IH。调查结果表明，人们（尤其是女性）不太愿意接受女性（相对于男性）遭受工具性伤害。我们讨论了我们的研究结果的理论和实践意义以及局限性。