Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:36:35.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INCREASING THE VERACITY OF IMPLICITLY BIASED RANKINGS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2016

Martin L. Jönsson  and
Julia Sjödahl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In spite of our good intentions and explicit egalitarian convictions, we habitually disfavor the underprivileged. The rapidly growing literature on implicit bias – unconscious, automatic tendencies to associate negative traits with members of particular social groups – points towards explanations of this dissonance, although rarely towards generalizable solutions. In a recent paper, Jennifer Saul (2013) draws attention to the alarming epistemological problems that implicit bias carries with it; since our judgments about each other are likely influenced by implicit bias, we have good reason to doubt their veracity. In this paper we explore a novel way to come to terms with the epistemological problem as it manifests itself in ranking situations, i.e. how we can know that the way in which we have ranked a group of people for a certain position, reflects their actual competence (or the best estimate of their competence given the evidence). On our approach, rather than attempting to make people less biased, we suggest that biased behavior can sometimes be corrected after the fact. In particular, the veracity of rankings can sometimes be improved by modifying the rankings directly. We investigate three methods that modify biased rankings, and argue that the last of these solves the epistemological problem that we are concerned with.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. 499 - 517
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, C. A. 2007. ‘Belief Perseverence.’ In Baumeister, R. and Vohs, K. D. (eds), Encyclopedia of Social Psychology, pp. 109–10. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Bargh, J. A. 1999. ‘The Cognitive Monster: The Case Against the Controllability of Automatic Stereotype Effects.’ In Chaiken, S. and Trope, Y. (eds), Dual-Process Theory in Social Psychology, pp. 361–82. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Bertrand, M. and Mullainathan, S. 2004. ‘Are Emily and Greg more Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?’ American Economic Review, 94: 994–1013.Google Scholar
Blair, I. V., Ma, J. E. and Lenton, A. P. 2001. ‘Imagining Stereotypes Away: The Moderation of Implicit Stereotypes through Mental Imagery.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81: 821–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carastathis, A. 2014. ‘The Concept of Intersectionality in Feminist Theory.’ Philosophy Compass, 9: 304–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, A. J. [1923] 1990. A Voice from The South. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Correll, S. J., Benard, S. and Paik, I. 2007. ‘Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty?’ American Journal of Sociology, 112: 1297–339.Google Scholar
Crenshaw, K. W. 1989. ‘Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.’ Chicago Legal Forum, 140: 139–67.Google Scholar
Dasgupta, N. and Asgari, S. 2004. ‘Seeing is Believing: Exposure to Counterstereotypical Women Leaders and its Effect on the Malleability of Automatic Gender Stereotyping.’ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40: 642–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dasgupta, N. and Greenwald, A. 2001. ‘On the Malleability of Automatic Attitudes: Combating Automatic Prejudice with Images of Admired and Disliked Individuals.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81: 800–14.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. [1641] 1952. ‘Meditations On First Philosophy.’ In Smith, N. Kemp (ed.), Descartes’ Philosophical Writings . London: Macmillan & Co.Google Scholar
Devine, P. G. 1989. ‘Stereotypes and Prejudice: Their Automatic and Controlled Components.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56: 5–18.Google Scholar
Fazio, R. H. and Towles-Schwen, T. 1999. ‘The MODE Model of Attitude-Behaviour Processes.’ In Chaiken, S. and Trope, Y. (eds), Dual-Process Theory in Social Psychology, pp. 97–116. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Ginther, D. K., Schaffer, W. T., Schnell, J., Masimore, B., Liu, F., Haak, L. L. and Kington, R. 2011. ‘Race, Ethnicity and NIH Research Awards.’ Science, 333: 1015–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldin, C. and Rouse, C. 2000. ‘Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of ‘Blind’ Auditions on Female Musicians.’ American Economic Review, 90: 715–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, E. F. and Hardin, C. D. 2007. ‘Implicit and Explicit Stereotyping of Adolescents.’ Social Justice Research, 20: 140–60.Google Scholar
Hardin, C. D. and Banaji, M. R. 2013. ‘The Nature of Implicit Prejudice: Implications for Personal and Public Policy.’ In Shafir, E. (ed.), The Behavioural Foundations of Public Policies, pp. 13–31. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, P.J. and Hardin, C. D. 2006. ‘The Contact Hypothesis Revisited: Status Bias in the Reduction of Implicit Prejudice in the United States and Lebanon.’ Psychological Science, 17: 862–8.Google Scholar
Kang, J. and Banaji, M. R. 2006. ‘Fair Measures: A Behavioural Realist Revision of ‘Affirmative Action'.’ California Law Review, 94: 1063–118.Google Scholar
Kawakami, K., Phills, C. E., Steele, J. R. and Dovidio, J. F. 2007. ‘(Close) Distance Makes the Heart Grow Fonder: the Impact of Approach Orientations on Attitudes Toward Blacks.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92: 957–71.Google Scholar
Kenyon, T. 2014. ‘False Polarization: De-biasing As Applied Social Epistemology.’ Synthese, 191: 2529–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, M. 2016. Conducting Effective Structured Interviews. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/107843.pdf.Google Scholar
LaPiere, R. 1934. ‘Attitudes Versus Actions.’ Social Forces, 13: 230–7.Google Scholar
Lee, R. and Anderson, C. A. 1982. ‘Shortcomings in the Attribution Process: On the Origins and Maintenance of Erroneous Social Assessments.’ In Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (eds), Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, pp. 129–52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Google Scholar
Mendoza, S., Gollwitzer, P. and Amodio, D. 2010. ‘Reducing the Expression of Implicit Stereotypes: Reflexive Control Through Implementation Intentions.’ Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36: 512–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J. and Handelsman, J. 2012. ‘Science Faculty's Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students.’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 109: 16474–9.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, T. F. and Tropp, L. 2006. ‘A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90: 751–83.Google Scholar
Phills, C. E., Kawakami, K., Tabi, E., Nadolny, D. and Inzlicht, M. 2011. ‘Mind the Gap: Increasing Associations Between the Self and Blacks With Approach Behaviors.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100: 197–210.Google Scholar
Pronin, E., Lin, D. Y. and Ross, L. 2002. ‘The Bias Blid Spot: Perceptios of Bias in Self Versus Others.’ Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28: 369–81.Google Scholar
Rooth, D. 2010. ‘Automatic Associations and Discrimination in Hiring: Real World Evidence.’ Labour Economics, 17: 523–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudman, L. A. and Borgida, E. 1995. ‘The Afterglow of Construct Accessibility: The Behavioural Consequences of Priming Men to View Women as Sexual Objects.’ Sex Roles, 31: 493–517.Google Scholar
Saul, J. 2013. ‘Scepticism and Implicit Bias.’ Disputatio, 37: 243–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinpreis, R. E., Anders, K. A. and Ritzke, D. 1999. ‘The Impact of Gender on the Review of the Curricula Vitae of Job Applicants and Tenure Candidates: A National Empirical Study.’ Sex Roles, 41: 509–28.Google Scholar
Stewart, B. D. and Payne, B. K. 2008. ‘Bringing Automatic Stereotyping Under Control: Implementation Intentions as Efficient Means of Thought Control.’ Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34: 1332–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Szabó Gendler, T. 2011. ‘On the Epistemic Costs of Implicit Bias.’ Philosophical Studies, 156: 33–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tripp, A. M. and Kang, A. 2008. ‘The Global Impact of Quotas: On the Fast Track to Increased Female Legislative Representation.’ Comparative Political Studies, 41: 338–61.Google Scholar
Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M. and Voci, A. 2007. ‘Reducing Explicit and Implicit Prejudice via Direct and Extended Contact: The Mediating Role of Self-Disclosure and Intergroup Anxiety.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93: 369–88.Google Scholar
Wennerås, C. and Wold, A. 1997. ‘Nepotism and Sexism in Peer Review.’ Nature, 387: 341–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed