Pub Date : 2022-05-19DOI: 10.1177/15291006221085255
Anthony G. Greenwald is Professor of Psychology at University of Washington (emeritus since 2020) and taught previously at Ohio State University (1965–1986). He received a BA from Yale (1959) and a PhD from Harvard (1963). His major research areas have been implicit and unconscious cognition. In 1995, Greenwald invented the Implicit Association Test (IAT), which rapidly became a standard for assessing individual differences in implicit social cognition. He has received the Distinguished Scientist Award from the Society of Experimental Social Psychology (2006), the William James Lifetime Achievement Award from the Association for Psychological Science (2013), the Distinguished Scientific Contributions Award from the American Psychological Association (jointly with Mahzarin Banaji, 2017), and he is an elected Fellow (2007) of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
{"title":"About the Authors","authors":"","doi":"10.1177/15291006221085255","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15291006221085255","url":null,"abstract":"<b>Anthony G. Greenwald</b> is Professor of Psychology at University of Washington (emeritus since 2020) and taught previously at Ohio State University (1965–1986). He received a BA from Yale (1959) and a PhD from Harvard (1963). His major research areas have been implicit and unconscious cognition. In 1995, Greenwald invented the Implicit Association Test (IAT), which rapidly became a standard for assessing individual differences in implicit social cognition. He has received the Distinguished Scientist Award from the Society of Experimental Social Psychology (2006), the William James Lifetime Achievement Award from the Association for Psychological Science (2013), the Distinguished Scientific Contributions Award from the American Psychological Association (jointly with Mahzarin Banaji, 2017), and he is an elected Fellow (2007) of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.","PeriodicalId":20879,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science in the Public Interest","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":25.4,"publicationDate":"2022-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138530255","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-01DOI: 10.1177/15291006211070781
A. Greenwald, N. Dasgupta, J. Dovidio, Jerry Kang, C. Moss‐Racusin, B. Teachman
Accumulated findings from studies in which implicit-bias measures correlate with discriminatory judgment and behavior have led many social scientists to conclude that implicit biases play a causal role in racial and other discrimination. In turn, that belief has promoted and sustained two lines of work to develop remedies: (a) individual treatment interventions expected to weaken or eradicate implicit biases and (b) group-administered training programs to overcome biases generally, including implicit biases. Our review of research on these two types of sought remedies finds that they lack established methods that durably diminish implicit biases and have not reproducibly reduced discriminatory consequences of implicit (or other) biases. That disappointing conclusion prompted our turn to strategies based on methods that have been successful in the domain of public health. Preventive measures are designed to disable the path from implicit biases to discriminatory outcomes. Disparity-finding methods aim to discover disparities that sometimes have obvious fixes, or that at least suggest where responsibility should reside for developing a fix. Disparity-finding methods have the advantage of being useful in remediation not only for implicit biases but also systemic biases. For both of these categories of bias, causes of discriminatory outcomes are understood as residing in large part outside the conscious awareness of individual actors. We conclude with recommendations to guide organizations that wish to deal with biases for which they have not yet found solutions.
{"title":"Implicit-Bias Remedies: Treating Discriminatory Bias as a Public-Health Problem","authors":"A. Greenwald, N. Dasgupta, J. Dovidio, Jerry Kang, C. Moss‐Racusin, B. Teachman","doi":"10.1177/15291006211070781","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15291006211070781","url":null,"abstract":"Accumulated findings from studies in which implicit-bias measures correlate with discriminatory judgment and behavior have led many social scientists to conclude that implicit biases play a causal role in racial and other discrimination. In turn, that belief has promoted and sustained two lines of work to develop remedies: (a) individual treatment interventions expected to weaken or eradicate implicit biases and (b) group-administered training programs to overcome biases generally, including implicit biases. Our review of research on these two types of sought remedies finds that they lack established methods that durably diminish implicit biases and have not reproducibly reduced discriminatory consequences of implicit (or other) biases. That disappointing conclusion prompted our turn to strategies based on methods that have been successful in the domain of public health. Preventive measures are designed to disable the path from implicit biases to discriminatory outcomes. Disparity-finding methods aim to discover disparities that sometimes have obvious fixes, or that at least suggest where responsibility should reside for developing a fix. Disparity-finding methods have the advantage of being useful in remediation not only for implicit biases but also systemic biases. For both of these categories of bias, causes of discriminatory outcomes are understood as residing in large part outside the conscious awareness of individual actors. We conclude with recommendations to guide organizations that wish to deal with biases for which they have not yet found solutions.","PeriodicalId":20879,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science in the Public Interest","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":25.4,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42668183","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-01DOI: 10.1177/15291006221099494
{"title":"Corrigendum: The Science of Visual Data Communication: What Works","authors":"","doi":"10.1177/15291006221099494","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15291006221099494","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":20879,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science in the Public Interest","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":25.4,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49557001","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-01DOI: 10.1177/15291006221094508
M. Olson, L. Gill
Greenwald, Dasgupta, Dovidio, Kang, Moss-Racusin, and Teachman (this issue) distinguish among individual-, group-, and institutional-level interventions to reduce discrimination. We refer to the first two as “hearts and minds” approaches because they are designed to mitigate or reduce prejudice within individuals. Institutionallevel interventions, on the other hand, attempt to render individual biases irrelevant to decision processes through organizational policies and practices. On the basis of the available evidence, the authors of the target article doubt the efficacy of hearts-and-minds approaches and emphasize the prospects of institutional-level approaches from a preventative public-health perspective. As we are all steeped in the same literatures, we sympathize with the authors’ doubt. However, and despite both social and scientific attention away from individual bias and toward systemic bias, we argue that it is difficult to create systemic change by bypassing hearts and minds and that interventions attempting to change them should be preserved and refined. To that end, we offer a framework that we hope will advance research and interventions that target groups and individuals. Ultimately, we encourage an integration of individual-level and public-health perspectives to address implicit bias. Before presenting our case, it is worth noting that we have few substantive disagreements with the authors’ take on the literature as it presently sits. We are in general agreement that implicit bias is pervasive and influential, that the Implicit Association Test (IAT) is a reasonably good tool with which assess it, and that implicit bias and explicit bias are not necessarily distinct entities in people’s heads (cf. Wilson et al., 2000). We also agree, and echo work by Paluck (e.g., Paluck et al., 2021) and Lai (e.g., Lai et al., 2016), that interventions designed to weaken implicit bias (or prejudice generally) tend to disappoint once they leave the confines of a single laboratory session. Our points of departure from the authors include how implicit bias ought to be conceptualized and its modes of influence on judgments and behavior. Each of these have implications for interventions aimed at both mitigating bias’s impact and reducing bias itself. We also offer insight into two questions posed by the authors for which they believe there is insufficient data to answer: (a) “Are implicit biases introspectively (consciously) accessible?” (we think they are) and (b) “How do the association strengths measured by the IAT influence social behavior?” (we will explain below). The dual-process framework we describe may help resolve some of these disagreements, illuminate when and how individual implicit bias leads to discrimination, and explain how interventions might be improved to mitigate or reduce it. A primary point we hope to convey is that the institutional policies and practices informed by publichealth perspectives are not immune to the effects of b
{"title":"Implicit Bias Is a Public-Health Problem, and Hearts and Minds Are Part of the Solution","authors":"M. Olson, L. Gill","doi":"10.1177/15291006221094508","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15291006221094508","url":null,"abstract":"Greenwald, Dasgupta, Dovidio, Kang, Moss-Racusin, and Teachman (this issue) distinguish among individual-, group-, and institutional-level interventions to reduce discrimination. We refer to the first two as “hearts and minds” approaches because they are designed to mitigate or reduce prejudice within individuals. Institutionallevel interventions, on the other hand, attempt to render individual biases irrelevant to decision processes through organizational policies and practices. On the basis of the available evidence, the authors of the target article doubt the efficacy of hearts-and-minds approaches and emphasize the prospects of institutional-level approaches from a preventative public-health perspective. As we are all steeped in the same literatures, we sympathize with the authors’ doubt. However, and despite both social and scientific attention away from individual bias and toward systemic bias, we argue that it is difficult to create systemic change by bypassing hearts and minds and that interventions attempting to change them should be preserved and refined. To that end, we offer a framework that we hope will advance research and interventions that target groups and individuals. Ultimately, we encourage an integration of individual-level and public-health perspectives to address implicit bias. Before presenting our case, it is worth noting that we have few substantive disagreements with the authors’ take on the literature as it presently sits. We are in general agreement that implicit bias is pervasive and influential, that the Implicit Association Test (IAT) is a reasonably good tool with which assess it, and that implicit bias and explicit bias are not necessarily distinct entities in people’s heads (cf. Wilson et al., 2000). We also agree, and echo work by Paluck (e.g., Paluck et al., 2021) and Lai (e.g., Lai et al., 2016), that interventions designed to weaken implicit bias (or prejudice generally) tend to disappoint once they leave the confines of a single laboratory session. Our points of departure from the authors include how implicit bias ought to be conceptualized and its modes of influence on judgments and behavior. Each of these have implications for interventions aimed at both mitigating bias’s impact and reducing bias itself. We also offer insight into two questions posed by the authors for which they believe there is insufficient data to answer: (a) “Are implicit biases introspectively (consciously) accessible?” (we think they are) and (b) “How do the association strengths measured by the IAT influence social behavior?” (we will explain below). The dual-process framework we describe may help resolve some of these disagreements, illuminate when and how individual implicit bias leads to discrimination, and explain how interventions might be improved to mitigate or reduce it. A primary point we hope to convey is that the institutional policies and practices informed by publichealth perspectives are not immune to the effects of b","PeriodicalId":20879,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science in the Public Interest","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":25.4,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43293675","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-01DOI: 10.1177/15291006211061384
{"title":"About the Authors","authors":"","doi":"10.1177/15291006211061384","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15291006211061384","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":20879,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science in the Public Interest","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":25.4,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49196387","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"About the Authors","authors":"Darrell Jodock, W. Nelsen","doi":"10.2307/j.ctv1khdp1s.15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1khdp1s.15","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":20879,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science in the Public Interest","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":25.4,"publicationDate":"2021-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48136721","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-01DOI: 10.1177/15291006211042597
{"title":"About the Authors","authors":"","doi":"10.1177/15291006211042597","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15291006211042597","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":20879,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science in the Public Interest","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":25.4,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46153939","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-01DOI: 10.1177/1529100620973974
D. Lombardi, T. Shipley
The construct of active learning permeates undergraduate education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), but despite its prevalence, the construct means different things to different people, groups, and STEM domains. To better understand active learning, we constructed this review through an innovative interdisciplinary collaboration involving research teams from psychology and discipline-based education research (DBER). Our collaboration examined active learning from two different perspectives (i.e., psychology and DBER) and surveyed the current landscape of undergraduate STEM instructional practices related to the modes of active learning and traditional lecture. On that basis, we concluded that active learning—which is commonly used to communicate an alternative to lecture and does serve a purpose in higher education classroom practice—is an umbrella term that is not particularly useful in advancing research on learning. To clarify, we synthesized a working definition of active learning that operates within an elaborative framework, which we call the construction-of-understanding ecosystem. A cornerstone of this framework is that undergraduate learners should be active agents during instruction and that the social construction of meaning plays an important role for many learners, above and beyond their individual cognitive construction of knowledge. Our proposed framework offers a coherent and actionable concept of active learning with the aim of advancing future research and practice in undergraduate STEM education.
{"title":"The Curious Construct of Active Learning","authors":"D. Lombardi, T. Shipley","doi":"10.1177/1529100620973974","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100620973974","url":null,"abstract":"The construct of active learning permeates undergraduate education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), but despite its prevalence, the construct means different things to different people, groups, and STEM domains. To better understand active learning, we constructed this review through an innovative interdisciplinary collaboration involving research teams from psychology and discipline-based education research (DBER). Our collaboration examined active learning from two different perspectives (i.e., psychology and DBER) and surveyed the current landscape of undergraduate STEM instructional practices related to the modes of active learning and traditional lecture. On that basis, we concluded that active learning—which is commonly used to communicate an alternative to lecture and does serve a purpose in higher education classroom practice—is an umbrella term that is not particularly useful in advancing research on learning. To clarify, we synthesized a working definition of active learning that operates within an elaborative framework, which we call the construction-of-understanding ecosystem. A cornerstone of this framework is that undergraduate learners should be active agents during instruction and that the social construction of meaning plays an important role for many learners, above and beyond their individual cognitive construction of knowledge. Our proposed framework offers a coherent and actionable concept of active learning with the aim of advancing future research and practice in undergraduate STEM education.","PeriodicalId":20879,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science in the Public Interest","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":25.4,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1529100620973974","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43533712","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-01DOI: 10.1177/15291006211005436
{"title":"About the Authors","authors":"","doi":"10.1177/15291006211005436","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15291006211005436","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":20879,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science in the Public Interest","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":25.4,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/15291006211005436","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42480803","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-31DOI: 10.36019/9780813554280-010
{"title":"Chapter 7. Hearing and Sanction Deliberations: Transparency and Fact Construction Issues","authors":"","doi":"10.36019/9780813554280-010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36019/9780813554280-010","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":20879,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science in the Public Interest","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":25.4,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79572328","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：