Transparency Should Trump Trust: Rejoinder to McConnell and Leibold (2009) and Ziegert and Hanges (2009)

Hart Blanton; James Jaccard; Jonathan Klick; Barbara Mellers; Gregory Mitchell; Philip E. Tetlock

doi:10.1037/a0014666

Transparency Should Trump Trust: Rejoinder to McConnell and Leibold (2009) and Ziegert and Hanges (2009)

Hart Blanton, James Jaccard, Jonathan Klick, Barbara Mellers, Gregory Mitchell, Philip E. Tetlock

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

The rebuttals offered by the authors whose data we reanalyzed (A. R. McConnell & J. M. Leibold, 2001; J. C. Ziegert & P. J. Hanges, 2005) address secondary issues that do not alter our primary message: The evidence for the predictive validity of the race Implicit Association Test is too fragile to support the strong claims that have been made about the pervasiveness of prejudice and the linkages between Implicit Association Test scores and discriminatory behavior. Greater caution in both the legal and scientific communities is warranted. Most importantly, scientific research on implicit bias needs greater transparency and willingness to open raw data to critical scrutiny, not greater trust and deference among researchers.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	598-603
Number of pages	6
Journal	Journal of Applied Psychology
Volume	94
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014666
State	Published - May 2009

Keywords

Implicit Association Test
discrimination
implicit bias
predictive validity
replication

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Applied Psychology

Access to Document

10.1037/a0014666

Cite this

@article{d8dfbd442da1487cb52a823ae962bdde,

title = "Transparency Should Trump Trust: Rejoinder to McConnell and Leibold (2009) and Ziegert and Hanges (2009)",

abstract = "The rebuttals offered by the authors whose data we reanalyzed (A. R. McConnell & J. M. Leibold, 2001; J. C. Ziegert & P. J. Hanges, 2005) address secondary issues that do not alter our primary message: The evidence for the predictive validity of the race Implicit Association Test is too fragile to support the strong claims that have been made about the pervasiveness of prejudice and the linkages between Implicit Association Test scores and discriminatory behavior. Greater caution in both the legal and scientific communities is warranted. Most importantly, scientific research on implicit bias needs greater transparency and willingness to open raw data to critical scrutiny, not greater trust and deference among researchers.",

keywords = "Implicit Association Test, discrimination, implicit bias, predictive validity, replication",

author = "Hart Blanton and James Jaccard and Jonathan Klick and Barbara Mellers and Gregory Mitchell and Tetlock, {Philip E.}",

year = "2009",

month = may,

doi = "10.1037/a0014666",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "94",

pages = "598--603",

journal = "Journal of Applied Psychology",

issn = "0021-9010",

publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Transparency Should Trump Trust

T2 - Rejoinder to McConnell and Leibold (2009) and Ziegert and Hanges (2009)

AU - Blanton, Hart

AU - Jaccard, James

AU - Klick, Jonathan

AU - Mellers, Barbara

AU - Mitchell, Gregory

AU - Tetlock, Philip E.

PY - 2009/5

Y1 - 2009/5

N2 - The rebuttals offered by the authors whose data we reanalyzed (A. R. McConnell & J. M. Leibold, 2001; J. C. Ziegert & P. J. Hanges, 2005) address secondary issues that do not alter our primary message: The evidence for the predictive validity of the race Implicit Association Test is too fragile to support the strong claims that have been made about the pervasiveness of prejudice and the linkages between Implicit Association Test scores and discriminatory behavior. Greater caution in both the legal and scientific communities is warranted. Most importantly, scientific research on implicit bias needs greater transparency and willingness to open raw data to critical scrutiny, not greater trust and deference among researchers.

AB - The rebuttals offered by the authors whose data we reanalyzed (A. R. McConnell & J. M. Leibold, 2001; J. C. Ziegert & P. J. Hanges, 2005) address secondary issues that do not alter our primary message: The evidence for the predictive validity of the race Implicit Association Test is too fragile to support the strong claims that have been made about the pervasiveness of prejudice and the linkages between Implicit Association Test scores and discriminatory behavior. Greater caution in both the legal and scientific communities is warranted. Most importantly, scientific research on implicit bias needs greater transparency and willingness to open raw data to critical scrutiny, not greater trust and deference among researchers.

KW - Implicit Association Test

KW - discrimination

KW - implicit bias

KW - predictive validity

KW - replication

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=65649139625&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=65649139625&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/a0014666

DO - 10.1037/a0014666

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:65649139625

VL - 94

SP - 598

EP - 603

JO - Journal of Applied Psychology

JF - Journal of Applied Psychology

SN - 0021-9010

IS - 3

ER -

Transparency Should Trump Trust: Rejoinder to McConnell and Leibold (2009) and Ziegert and Hanges (2009)

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this