Avoiding Bias in the Search for Implicit Bias

IF 7.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychological Inquiry Pub Date : 2022-07-03 DOI:10.1080/1047840X.2022.2106762
Wilson Cyrus-Lai, W. Tierney, Christilene du Plessis, M. Nguyen, M. Schaerer, Elena Giulia Clemente, E. Uhlmann
{"title":"Avoiding Bias in the Search for Implicit Bias","authors":"Wilson Cyrus-Lai, W. Tierney, Christilene du Plessis, M. Nguyen, M. Schaerer, Elena Giulia Clemente, E. Uhlmann","doi":"10.1080/1047840X.2022.2106762","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To revitalize the study of unconscious bias, Gawronski, Ledgerwood, and Eastwick (this issue) propose a paradigm shift away from implicit measures of intergroup attitudes and beliefs. Specifically, researchers should capture discriminatory biases and demonstrate that participants are unaware of the influence of social category cues on their judgments and actions. Individual differences in scores on implicit measures will be useful to predict and better understand implicitly prejudiced behaviors, but the latter should be the collective focus of researchers interested in unconscious biases against social groups. We welcome Gawronski et al.’s (this issue) proposal and seek to build on their insights. We begin by summarizing recent empirical challenges to the implicit measurement approach, which has for the last quarter century focused heavily on capturing individual differences and examining their potential antecedents and consequences. In our view, Gawronski et al. (this issue) underestimate the problems the subfield of implicit bias research is currently facing; the need for a paradigm shift in focus and approach is truly urgent. Although we strongly agree with their basic thesis, we also stress the importance of avoiding various forms of potential bias in the search for implicit bias. First, research in this area should leverage open science innovations such as pre-registration of competing predictions to allow for intellectually and ideologically dissonant conclusions of equal treatment and “reverse” discrimination against members of historically privileged groups. Second, in assessing awareness of bias, researchers should avoid equating unconsciousness with the null hypothesis that evidence of awareness will not emerge, and instead seek positive evidence that the behavioral bias is implicit in nature. Finally, to avoid underestimating the pervasiveness of intergroup bias, scientists should continue to develop and attempt to validate implicit measures of attitudes and beliefs, which may tap latent prejudices expressed in only a small subset of overt actions.","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2022.2106762","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

To revitalize the study of unconscious bias, Gawronski, Ledgerwood, and Eastwick (this issue) propose a paradigm shift away from implicit measures of intergroup attitudes and beliefs. Specifically, researchers should capture discriminatory biases and demonstrate that participants are unaware of the influence of social category cues on their judgments and actions. Individual differences in scores on implicit measures will be useful to predict and better understand implicitly prejudiced behaviors, but the latter should be the collective focus of researchers interested in unconscious biases against social groups. We welcome Gawronski et al.’s (this issue) proposal and seek to build on their insights. We begin by summarizing recent empirical challenges to the implicit measurement approach, which has for the last quarter century focused heavily on capturing individual differences and examining their potential antecedents and consequences. In our view, Gawronski et al. (this issue) underestimate the problems the subfield of implicit bias research is currently facing; the need for a paradigm shift in focus and approach is truly urgent. Although we strongly agree with their basic thesis, we also stress the importance of avoiding various forms of potential bias in the search for implicit bias. First, research in this area should leverage open science innovations such as pre-registration of competing predictions to allow for intellectually and ideologically dissonant conclusions of equal treatment and “reverse” discrimination against members of historically privileged groups. Second, in assessing awareness of bias, researchers should avoid equating unconsciousness with the null hypothesis that evidence of awareness will not emerge, and instead seek positive evidence that the behavioral bias is implicit in nature. Finally, to avoid underestimating the pervasiveness of intergroup bias, scientists should continue to develop and attempt to validate implicit measures of attitudes and beliefs, which may tap latent prejudices expressed in only a small subset of overt actions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在寻找隐性偏见中避免偏见
为了振兴对无意识偏见的研究,Gawronski、Ledgerwood和Eastwick(本期)提出了一种范式转变,从群体间态度和信仰的内隐测量中转移出来。具体来说,研究人员应该捕捉歧视性偏见,并证明参与者没有意识到社会类别线索对他们的判断和行动的影响。内隐测量得分的个体差异将有助于预测和更好地理解隐性偏见行为,但后者应该是对针对社会群体的无意识偏见感兴趣的研究人员的集体关注点。我们欢迎Gawronski等人(本期)的建议,并寻求在他们的见解基础上再接再厉。我们首先总结了最近对内隐测量方法的实证挑战,在过去的四分之一个世纪里,内隐测量法一直专注于捕捉个体差异并研究其潜在的前因和后果。在我们看来,Gawronski等人(本期)低估了内隐偏见研究子领域目前面临的问题;确实迫切需要在重点和方法上进行范式转变。尽管我们强烈同意他们的基本论点,但我们也强调在寻找隐性偏见时避免各种形式的潜在偏见的重要性。首先,这一领域的研究应该利用开放科学创新,例如预先登记相互竞争的预测,以得出在智力和意识形态上不和谐的平等待遇结论,并“扭转”对历史特权群体成员的歧视。其次,在评估偏见意识时,研究人员应避免将无意识等同于意识证据不会出现的无效假设,而是寻求行为偏见本质上是隐含的积极证据。最后,为了避免低估群体间偏见的普遍性,科学家们应该继续开发并尝试验证态度和信仰的隐性测量,这可能会利用仅在一小部分公开行动中表达的潜在偏见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological Inquiry
Psychological Inquiry PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
1.10%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: Psychological Inquiry serves as an international journal dedicated to the advancement of psychological theory. Each edition features an extensive target article exploring a controversial or provocative topic, accompanied by peer commentaries and a response from the target author(s). Proposals for target articles must be submitted using the Target Article Proposal Form, and only approved proposals undergo peer review by at least three reviewers. Authors are invited to submit their full articles after the proposal has received approval from the Editor.
期刊最新文献
How Prevalent is Social Projection? The Future of Social Perception Models: Further Directions for Theoretical Development of the Inductive Reasoning Model Social Projection and Cognitive Differentiation Co-Explain Self-Enhancement and in-Group Favoritism Three Pokes into the Comfort Zone of the Inductive Reasoning Model Inductive Reasoning Renewed: A Reply to Commentators
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1