Gregory Mitchell

Predicting ethnic and racial discrimination: a meta-analysis of IAT criterion studies.

This article reports a meta-analysis of studies examining the predictive validity of the Implicit Association Test (IAT) and explicit measures of bias for a wide range of criterion measures of discrimination. The meta-analysis estimates the heterogeneity of effects within and across 2 domains of intergroup bias (interracial and interethnic), 6 criterion categories (interpersonal behavior, person perception, policy preference, microbehavior, response time, and brain activity), 2 versions of the IAT (stereotype and attitude IATs), 3 strategies for measuring explicit bias (feeling thermometers, multi-item explicit measures such as the Modern Racism Scale, and ad hoc measures of intergroup attitudes and stereotypes), and 4 criterion-scoring methods (computed majority-minority difference scores, relative majority-minority ratings, minority-only ratings, and majority-only ratings). IATs were poor predictors of every criterion category other than brain activity, and the IATs performed no better than simple explicit measures. These results have important implications for the construct validity of IATs, for competing theories of prejudice and attitude-behavior relations, and for measuring and modeling prejudice and discrimination.

Revisiting Truth or Triviality: The External Validity of Research in the Psychological Laboratory

Anderson, Lindsay, and Bushman (1999) compared effect sizes from laboratory and field studies of 38 research topics compiled in 21 meta-analyses and concluded that psychological laboratories produced externally valid results. A replication and extension of Anderson et al. (1999) using 217 lab-field comparisons from 82 meta-analyses found that the external validity of laboratory research differed considerably by psychological subfield, research topic, and effect size. Laboratory results from industrial–organizational psychology most reliably predicted field results, effects found in social psychology laboratories most frequently changed signs in the field (from positive to negative or vice versa), and large laboratory effects were more reliably replicated in the field than medium and small laboratory effects.

Strong Claims and Weak Evidence: Reassessing the Predictive Validity of the IAT

The authors reanalyzed data from 2 influential studies-A. R. McConnell and J. M. Leibold and J. C. Ziegert and P. J. Hanges-that explore links between implicit bias and discriminatory behavior and that have been invoked to support strong claims about the predictive validity of the Implicit Association Test. In both of these studies, the inclusion of race Implicit Association Test scores in regression models reduced prediction errors by only tiny amounts, and Implicit Association Test scores did not permit prediction of individual-level behaviors. Furthermore, the results were not robust when the impact of rater reliability, statistical specifications, and/or outliers were taken into account, and reanalysis of A. R. McConnell & J. M. Leibold (2001) revealed a pattern of behavior consistent with a pro-Black behavioral bias, rather than the anti-Black bias suggested in the original study.

GENERATION OF A SILYLENE COMPLEX BY THE 1,2-MIGRATION OF HYDROGEN FROM SILICON TO PLATINUM

An extraordinary downfield-shifted 29 Si{1 H} NMR signal is seen at δ=338.5 for the platinum silylene complex [(dippe)(H)Pt=SiMes2 ][MeB(C6 F5 )3 ] (2). This remarkably stable metal silylene complex was obtained from 1 in the first intramolecular 1,2-hydride migration from silicon to a transition metal. dippe=iPr2 PCH2 CH2 PiPr2 , Mes=2,4,6-Me3 C6 H2 .

Experiments Behind the Veil: Structural Influences on Judgments of Social Justice

In two experiments, participants judged the fairness of different distributions of wealth in hypothetical societies. In the first study, the level of meritocracy in the hypothetical societies and the frame of reference from which participants judged alternative distributions of wealth interacted to influence fairness judgments. As meritocracy increased, all participants became more tolerant of economic inequality, particularly when they judged fairness from a redistribution frame of reference that made salient transfers among socioeconomic classes. Liberal participants, however, placed a greater emphasis on equality than did conservative participants across all conditions. In the second study, reactions to income transfers depended on the efficiency of the transfers and the identity of the groups receiving the benefits, but conservatives placed a greater emphasis in their fairness judgments on tying benefits to workfare requirements, whereas liberals did not distinguish between unconditional welfare transfers and workfare transfers.

Using the IAT to Predict Ethnic and Racial Discrimination: Small Effect Sizes of Unknown Societal Significance

Greenwald, Banaji, and Nosek (2015) present a reanalysis of the meta-analysis by Oswald, Mitchell, Blanton, Jaccard, and Tetlock (2013) that examined the effect sizes of Implicit Association Tests (IATs) designed to predict racial and ethnic discrimination. We discuss points of agreement and disagreement with respect to methods used to synthesize the IAT studies, and we correct an error by Greenwald et al. that obscures a key contribution of our meta-analysis. In the end, all of the meta-analyses converge on the conclusion that, across diverse methods of coding and analyzing the data, IAT scores are not good predictors of ethnic or racial discrimination, and explain, at most, small fractions of the variance in discriminatory behavior in controlled laboratory settings. The thought experiments presented by Greenwald et al. go well beyond the lab to claim systematic IAT effects in noisy real-world settings, but these hypothetical exercises depend crucially on untested and, arguably, untenable assumptions.

Calibrating Prejudice in Milliseconds

Psychological social psychologists have devoted great effort to measuring the elusive construct of unconscious prejudice. However, recent work underscores both the psychometric flaws of these measures and the weaknesses in claims that they predict behavior in realistic organizational settings. Before accepting unconscious prejudice as an inevitable source of individual-level disparate treatment and endorsing structural solutions such as quotas, sociological social psychologists need to explore the relative efficacy of institutional norms and accountability systems widely used for checking both conscious and unconscious forms of individual-level bias.

The ASA’s Missed Opportunity to Promote Sound Science in Court

The American Sociological Association (ASA) filed an amicus brief in Wal-Mart v. Dukes in which the ASA defended the testimony of the plaintiffs’ sociological expert. Unfortunately, the ASA’s portrayal and defense of the method and opinions of this expert do not match the actual method used, and opinions offered, by the expert in the Wal-Mart case. The authors demonstrate that none of the ASA’s defenses of the expert’s method has merit and that the expert violated basic methodological rules set out by the ASA’s own sources. The opinions to which the expert testified, therefore, lacked a scientific foundation.

Situated Social Identities Constrain Morally Defensible Choices: Commentary on Bennis, Medin, & Bartels (2010)

Conceptual distinctions that loom large to philosophers—such as the distinction between utilitarian and deontic decision norms—may be far less salient to most other mortals. Building on an intuitive-politician model of judgment and choice and on the empirical work reported by Bennis, Medin, and Bartels (2010, this issue), we argue that the overriding goal of most decision makers in the paradigms under scrutiny is to offer judgments that are readily defensible and that reinforce their social identities as both cognitively flexible (responsive to evidence and cost-benefit considerations) and morally principled (prepared to defend sacred values and censure those who do not). People are best classified neither as utilitarians nor Kantians but rather as pragmatic social beings embedded in complex cultural-political systems.

Balancing Fairness and Efficiency: The Impact of Identity-Blind and Identity-Conscious Accountability on Applicant Screening

This study compared two forms of accountability that can be used to promote diversity and fairness in personnel selections: identity-conscious accountability (holding decision makers accountable for which groups are selected) versus identity-blind accountability (holding decision makers accountable for making fair selections). In a simulated application screening process, undergraduate participants (majority female) sorted applicants under conditions of identity-conscious accountability, identity-blind accountability, or no accountability for an applicant pool in which white males either did or did not have a human capital advantage. Under identity-conscious accountability, participants exhibited pro-female and pro-minority bias, particularly in the white-male-advantage applicant pool. Under identity-blind accountability, participants exhibited no biases and candidate qualifications dominated interview recommendations. Participants exhibited greater resentment toward management under identity-conscious accountability.