Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T05:20:22.405Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stereotyping Research and Employment Discrimination: Time to See the Forest for the Trees

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Eugene Borgida ,
Grace Deason ,
Anita Kim  and
Susan T. Fiske
Eugene Borgida*
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Grace Deason
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Anita Kim
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Susan T. Fiske
Affiliation:
Princeton University
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, 75 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455
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
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 1 , Issue 4 , December 2008 , pp. 405 - 408
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2008 

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.)

Footnotes

*

Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota

***

Department of Psychology, Princeton University

References

Bagenstos, S. R. (2007). Implicit bias, “science,” and antidiscrimination law. Harvard Law and Policy Review, 1, 477–493.Google Scholar
Borgida, E., Eagly, A. H., & Deason, G. (2008). What does expert testimony on stereotyping research have to offer lawyers in discrimination cases? Issues of general vs. specific causation vs. scientists’ continuum framework. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota and Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Borgida, E., Hunt, C., & Kim, A. (2005). On the use of gender stereotyping research in sex discrimination litigation. Journal of Law and Policy, 2, 613–628.Google Scholar
Copus, D. (2005). A lawyer’s view: Avoiding junk science. In Landy, F. J. (Ed.), Employment discrimination litigation: Behavioral, quantitative, and legal perspectives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).Google Scholar
Eagly, A., Deason, G., & Borgida, E. (2008, February 8). What does expert testimony on stereotyping research have to offer lawyers in discrimination cases? Issues of general vs. specific causation vs. scientists’ continuum framework. Paper presented at the invited symposium on WorkLife Law, Hastings Law Journal, Hastings College of the Law, University of California.Google Scholar
Faigman, D. L. (2008). The limits of science in the courtroom. In Borgida, E. & Fiske, S. T. (Eds.), Beyond common sense: Psychological science in the courtroom. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Faigman, D. L., Dasgupta, N., & Ridgeway, C. L. (in press). A matter of fit: The law of discrimination and the science of implicit bias. Hastings Law Journal.Google Scholar
Faigman, D. L., & Monahan, J. (2005). Psychological evidence at the dawn of the law’s scientific age. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 631–659.Google Scholar
Faigman, D. L., Saks, M. J., Sanders, J., & Cheng, E. K. (2007). Gender stereotyping: Legal issues. In Faigman, D., Kaye, D. H., Saks, M. J., & Sanders, J. & Cheung, E. K. (Eds.), Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony, Vol. 2 (625–643). St. Paul, MN: Thomson West.Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T., Bersoff, D. N., Borgida, E., Deaux, K., & Heilman, M. E. (1991). Social science research on trial: The use of sex stereotyping research in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins . American Psychologist, 46, 1049–1060.Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T., & Borgida, E. (2008). Providing expert knowledge in an adversarial context: Social cognitive science in employment discrimination cases. Annual Review of Law and Social Science. doi: 10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.4.110707.172350Google Scholar
Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E., & Banaji, M. R. (in press). Understanding and using the implicit association test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.Google Scholar
Hedges, L. V. (1987). How hard is hard science, how soft is soft science? The empirical cumulativeness of research. American Psychologist, 42, 443–455.Google Scholar
Hunt, J. S., Borgida, E., Kelly, K. A., & Burgess, D. (2002). Gender stereotyping: Scientific status. In Faigman, D., Kaye, D. H., Saks, M. J., & Sanders, J. (Eds.), Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (pp. (374–426). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.Google Scholar
Landy, F. J. (2008a). Stereotypes, bias, and personnel decisions: Strange and stranger. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 379–392.Google Scholar
Landy, F. J. (2008b). The tenuous bridge between research and reality: The importance of research design in inferences regarding work behavior. In Borgida, E. & Fiske, S. T. (Eds.), Beyond common sense: Psychological science in the courtroom (pp. 341–352). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Lane, K. A., Kang, J., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). Implicit social cognition and law. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 427–451.Google Scholar
Mitchell, G., & Tetlock, P. E. (2006). Antidiscrimination law and the perils of mindreading. Ohio State University Law Review, 67, 1023–1122.Google Scholar
Monahan, J., & Walker, L. (1998). Social science in law: Cases and materials. Westbury, NY: The Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Monahan, J., Walker, L., & Mitchell, G. (in press). Contextual evidence of gender discrimination: The ascendance of “social frameworks.” Virginia Law Review.Google Scholar
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 255–256 (1989).Google Scholar