Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:51:03.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Implicit Bias and Philosophy (vol.1 & 2), Edited by Michael Brownstein and Jennifer Saul , Oxford University Press, 2016, pp. 640, £60 ISBN: 9780298713241

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2016

Sean Hermanson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reviews
Information
Philosophy , Volume 92 , Issue 2 , April 2017 , pp. 315 - 322
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 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

1 E.g. (1:2); (2:18).

2 An attempted replication by Darolia et al. using surnames failed to find any significant differences in callbacks across race and gender, though once again what went through the minds of prospective employers is unknown. See Darolia, R., Koedel, C., Martorell, P., Wilson, K., and Perez-Arce, F. (2016), ‘Race and gender effects on employer interest in job applicants: new evidence from a resume field experiment’, Applied Economics Letters 23(12): 853–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Jussim, L. (2015). ‘Précis of social perception and social reality: Why accuracy dominates bias and self-fulfilling prophecy’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1–66 Google ScholarPubMed.

4 Despite Goldin and Rouse's (1997; 2000) care in noting the limitations of their study, philosophers continue to replicate this post hoc fallacy (e.g. 1: 166; 1: 248).

5 Peters, D. P. and Ceci, S. J. (1982). ‘Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5(2): 187–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Budden, A. E., Tregenza, T., Aarssen, L. W., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R., and Lortie, C. J. (2008). ‘Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors’, Trends in ecology & evolution 23(1), 4–6 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. Also cited uncritically by Lee (1:268).

7 M. Clarke, (2008) ‘No Demonstrated Gender Bias in Double-Blind Peer Review’, Peer to Peer (blog) Nature, June 5. http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2008/06/no_demonstrated_gender_bias_in.html

8 For an amusing account of their famous study, and the backlash against the researchers, see: https://thewinnower.com/discussions/7-the-peters-ceci-study-of-journal-publications

9 Correll, J., Park, B., Judd, C. M., and Wittenbrink, B. (2002). ‘The police officer's dilemma: using ethnicity to disambiguate potentially threatening individuals’, Journal of personality and social psychology 83(6): 1314–29CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

10 Correll, J., Park, B., Judd, C. M., Judd, C. M., Wittenbrink, B., Sadler, M. S., and Keesee, T. (2007). ‘Across the thin blue line: Police officers and racial bias in decisions to shoot’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92: 1006–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 http://www.npr.org/2015/08/29/435833251/shooters-quicker-to-pull-trigger-when-target-is-black-study-finds

12 Mekawi, Y., and Bresin, K. (2015). ‘Is the evidence from racial bias shooting task studies a smoking gun? Results from a meta-analysis’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 61, 120–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 James, L., James, S. M., and Vila, B. J. (2016). ‘The Reverse Racism Effect’, Criminology & Public Policy 15(2): 457–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Mullainathan, S (2015). ‘Police killings of Blacks: Here is what the data have to say’, New York Times (Oct. 16).

15 Fryer Jr, R. G. (2016). ‘An empirical analysis of racial differences in police use of force’ (No. w22399). National Bureau of Economic Research.

16 https://osf.io/ezcuj/wiki/home/; https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-nature-nurture-nietzsche-blog/201509/quick-guide-the-replication-crisis-in-psychology

17 See http://www.nature.com/news/nobel-laureate-challenges-psychologists-to-clean-up-their-act-1.11535

18 https://psmag.com/women-math-and-the-addition-of-stereotypes-e4fc1ea543cd#.s0qtebwg2; https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201512/is-stereotype-threat-overcooked-overstated-and-oversold

19 http://www.apa.org/monitor/2008/07-08/psychometric.aspx; https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201101/does-the-implicit-association-test-iat-really-measure-racial-prejudice

20 http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-statistical-errors-1.14700

21 Head, M. L., Holman, L., Lanfear, R., Kahn, A. T., and Jennions, M. D. (2015). ‘The extent and consequences of p-hacking in science’, PLoS Biol 13(3), e1002106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Franco, A., Malhotra, N., and Simonovits, G. (2014). ‘Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer’, Science 345(6203): 1502–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

23 Pashler, H., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2012). ‘Editors’ introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science a crisis of confidence’, Perspectives on Psychological Science 7(6): 528–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.