Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T19:39:45.243Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Challenge of Debiasing Personnel Decisions: Avoiding Both Under- and Overcorrection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Philip E. Tetlock ,
Gregory Mitchell  and
Terry L. Murray
Philip E. Tetlock*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Gregory Mitchell
Affiliation:
University of Virginia
Terry L. Murray
Affiliation:
LASSC, LLC
*
E-mail: tetlock@haas.berkeley.edu, Address: Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, 545 Student Services Building #1900, Berkeley, CA 94720-1900
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. 439 - 443
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

*

Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley

**

School of Law, University of Virginia

References

Bielby, W. T. (2003). Can I get a witness? Challenges of using expert testimony on cognitive bias in employment discrimination litigation. Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal, 7, 377.Google Scholar
Bielby, W. T. (2005). Applying social research on stereotyping and cognitive bias to employment discrimination litigation: The case of allegations of systematic gender bias at Wal-Mart stores. In Nelson, R. L. & Nielsen, L. B. (Eds.), Handbook of employment discrimination research: Rights and realities (pp. 395–407). New York: Springer.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 (pp. 450–502). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Eberhardt, J. L. (2005). Imaging race. American Psychologist, 60, 181–190.Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T. (2000). Interdependence and the reduction of prejudice. In Oskam, S. (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 115–135). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ford, T. E., Gambino, F., Lee, H., Mayo, E., & Ferguson, M. A. (2004). The role of accountability in suppressing managers’ preinterview bias against African-American sales job applicants. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 24, 113–124.Google Scholar
Fryer, R. G. (in press). Implicit quotas. Journal of Legal Studies.Google Scholar
Glaser, J., & Knowles, E. D. (2008). Implicit motivation to control prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 164–172.Google Scholar
Goff, P. A., Steele, C. M., & Davies, P. G. (2008). The space between us: Stereotype threat and distance in interracial contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 91–107.Google Scholar
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71, 589–617.Google Scholar
Kang, J., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). Fair measures: A behavioral realist revision of “affirmative action.” California Law Review, 94, 1063–1118.Google Scholar
Kidder, D. L., Lankau, M. J., & Chrobot-Mason, D. (2004). Backlash toward diversity initiatives: Examining the impact of diversity program justification, personal and group outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 15, 77–102.Google Scholar
Landy, F. J. (2008). Stereotypes, bias, and personnel decisions: Strange and stranger. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 379–392.Google Scholar
Lerner, J., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 255–275.Google Scholar
Mellers, B., Hertwig, R., & Kahneman, D. (2001). Do frequency representations eliminate conjunction effects? An exercise in adversarial collaboration. Psychological Science, 12, 269–275.Google Scholar
Mitchell, G., & Tetlock, P. E. (2006). Antidiscrimination law and the perils of mindreading. Ohio State Law Journal, 67, 1023–1121.Google Scholar
Monahan, J., Walker, L., & Mitchell, G. (in press). Contextual evidence of gender discrimination: The ascendance of “social frameworks.” Virginia Law Review, 94.Google Scholar
Norton, M. I., Sommers, S. R., Apfelbaum, E. P., Pura, N., & Ariely, D. (2006). Color blindness and interracial interaction: Playing the “political correctness game.” Psychological Science, 17, 949–953.Google Scholar
Roth, P. L., Huffcutt, A. I., & Bobko, P. (2003). Ethnic group differences in measures of job performance: A new meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 694–706.Google Scholar
Ruscher, J. B., & Duval, L. L. (1998). Multiple communicators with unique target information transmit less stereotypical impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 329–344.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. (1983a). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 74–83.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. (1983b). Accountability and perseverance of first impressions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 285–292.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: A social check on the fundamental attribution error. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 227–236.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. (1992). The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model. In Zanna, M. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 331–376). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E., & Kim, J. L. (1987). Accountability and judgment processes in a personality prediction task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 700–709.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E., & Mitchell, G. (in press). Unconscious prejudice and accountability systems: What must organizations do to prevent discrimination? Research in Organizational Behavior, 30.Google Scholar