TY - JOUR
T1 - Providing expert knowledge in an adversarial context
T2 - Social cognitive science in employment discrimination cases
AU - Fiske, Susan T.
AU - Borgida, Eugene
PY - 2008
Y1 - 2008
N2 - Quality science provides the foundation for expert testimony in court, a claim illustrated here by three established principles of social cognition frequently applied to litigation in employment discrimination cases. First, dual processes, automatic and controlled, underlie "hidden" bias. The Implicit Association Test exemplifies one controversial but scientifically tractable application of such automaticity principles. Second, encoding and attention reveal incredibly early bias. Their potential application via neuroscience in the courtroom will challenge both science and the law. Third, mental construal produces categorical representation. Legal applications show categories' tenacity despite commonsense expectations about the impact of individuating information. Psychological scientists, expert witnesses, legal scholars, legal practitioners, and organizational managers each benefit when quality science is imported into legal contexts. Normal science disagreements should not mistakenly tarnish the credibility of quality science.
AB - Quality science provides the foundation for expert testimony in court, a claim illustrated here by three established principles of social cognition frequently applied to litigation in employment discrimination cases. First, dual processes, automatic and controlled, underlie "hidden" bias. The Implicit Association Test exemplifies one controversial but scientifically tractable application of such automaticity principles. Second, encoding and attention reveal incredibly early bias. Their potential application via neuroscience in the courtroom will challenge both science and the law. Third, mental construal produces categorical representation. Legal applications show categories' tenacity despite commonsense expectations about the impact of individuating information. Psychological scientists, expert witnesses, legal scholars, legal practitioners, and organizational managers each benefit when quality science is imported into legal contexts. Normal science disagreements should not mistakenly tarnish the credibility of quality science.
KW - Bias
KW - Organizations
KW - Prejudice
KW - Psychology
KW - Scientific testimony
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=57649187073&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=57649187073&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.4.110707.172350
DO - 10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.4.110707.172350
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:57649187073
SN - 1550-3585
VL - 4
SP - 123
EP - 148
JO - Annual Review of Law and Social Science
JF - Annual Review of Law and Social Science
ER -