The Missing Quadrants of Antidiscrimination: Going Beyond the "Prejudice Polygraph"

Journal of Social Issues

Volumn 68, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 314-327

  Kang, Jerry ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LEGISLATION; POLICY MAKING; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL EXCLUSION;

EID: 84862899259     PISSN: 00224537     EISSN: 15404560     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2012.01750.x     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Bayern, S. J. (Ed.) (2006). Symposium on behavioral realism. California Law Review. Vol. 94, pp. 945-1190.
2. Bendick, M. Jr., & Nunes, A. P. (2012). Developing the research basis for controlling bias in hiring. Journal of Social Issues, 68(2), 238-264.
3. Berger, M. A. (2009). Research on eyewitness testimony and false confessions. In E. Borgida, & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Beyond common sense: Psychological science in the courtroom (pp. 315-326). Oxford: Blackwell.
4. Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American Economic Review, 94, 991-1013.
5. Blair, I. V. (2002). The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 242-261.
6. Borgida, E., & Fiske, S. T. (Eds.) (2008). Beyond common sense: Psychological science in the courtroom. Oxford: Blackwell.
7. Brown v. Board of Education. (1954). 347 U.S. 483.
8. Correll, J., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2002). The police officer's dilemma: Using ethnicity to disambiguate potentially threatening individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1314-1329.
9. Dasgupta, N., & Asgari, S. (2004). Seeing is believing: Exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders and its effect on the malleability of automatic gender stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 642-658.
10. Dasgupta, N., & Greenwald, A. G. (2001). On the malleability of automatic attitudes: Combating automatic prejudice with images of admired and disliked individuals. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 81, 800-814.
11. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. (1993). Inc., 509 U.S. 579.
12. Diamond, S. S. (2008). Psychological contributions to evaluating witness testimony. In E. Borgida, & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Beyond common sense: Psychological science in the courtroom (pp. 353). Oxford: Blackwell.
13. Faigman, D. L. (2008). The limits of science in the courtroom. In E. Borgida, & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Beyond common sense: Psychological science in the courtroom (pp. 303-314). Oxford: Blackwell.
14. Farrakhan v. Gregoire. (2010). 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45987, No. CV-96-076-RHW, (E.D. Wash. July 7, 2006), rev'd 590 F.3d 989 (2010), reh'g granted, 603 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir.).
15. Farrakhan v. Gregoire. (2010). 623 F.3rd 990 (9th Cir.).
16. Fisher, E.L., & Borgida, E. (2012). Intergroup disparities and implicit bias: A commentary. Journal of Social Issues, 68(2), 385-398.
17. Fiske, S. T., Bersoff, D. N., Borgida, E., Deaux, K., & Heilman, M. E. (1991). Social science research on trial: Use of sex stereotyping research in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. American Psychologist, 46, 1049-1060.
18. Flanagan, J. F. (1983). Rejecting a general privilege for self critical analyses. George Washington Law Review, 51, 551-582.
19. General Electric Co. v. Joiner. (1997). 522 U.S. 136.
20. Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-Analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 17-41.
21. Grutter v. Bollinger. (2003). 539 U.S. 982.
22. Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse. (1989). 825 F.2d 458 (D.C. Cir. 1987), rev'd, 490 U.S. 228.
23. Jolls, C., & Sunstein, C. (2006). The law of implicit bias. California Law Review, 94, 969-996.
24. Kang, J., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). Fair measures: A behavioral realist revision of affirmative action. California Law Review, 94, 1063-1118.
25. Krieger, L. H., & Fiske, S. T. (2006). Behavioral realism in employment discrimination law: Implicit bias and disparate treatment. California Law Review, 94, 997-1062.
26. Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael. (1999). 526 U.S. 137.
27. Lane, K., Kang, J., & Banaji, M. (2007). Implicit social cognition and the law. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 19.1-19.25.
28. Mitchell, G., & Tetlock, P. E. (2006). Antidiscrimination law and the perils of mindreading. Ohio State Law Journal, 67, 1023.
29. National Research Council. (2009). Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
30. Pager, D., & Western, B. (2012). Identifying discrimination at work: The use of field experiments. Journal of Social Issues, 68(2), 221-237.
31. Plant, E. A., Peruche, B. M., & Butz, D. A. (2005). Eliminating automatic racial bias: Making race nondiagnostic for responses to criminal suspects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 141-156.
32. Pollard, D. A. (1999). Unconscious bias and self-critical analysis: The case for a qualified evidentiary equal employment opportunity privilege. Washington Law Review, 74, 913-1031.
33. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. (1989). 490 U.S. 228.
34. Ricci v. DeStefano. (2009). 129 S. Ct. 2658.
35. Rooth, D. (2007). Implicit discrimination in hiring: Real world evidence (Discussion Paper No. 2764). Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor.
36. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743-762.
37. Sadler, M. S., Correll, J., Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (2012). The world is not Black and White: Shooter bias in a multiethnic context. Journal of Social Issues, 68(2), 286-313.
38. Uhlmann, E. L., & Cohen, G. L. (2005). Constructed criteria: Redefining merit to justify discrimination. Psychological Science, 16, 474-480.
39. Vedantam, S. (2005, January 23). See no bias. The Washington Post, p. W12.