Premium
The Missing Quadrants of Antidiscrimination: Going Beyond the “Prejudice Polygraph”
Author(s) -
Kang Jerry
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
journal of social issues
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.618
H-Index - 122
eISSN - 1540-4560
pISSN - 0022-4537
DOI - 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2012.01750.x
Subject(s) - polygraph , framing (construction) , lawsuit , prejudice (legal term) , psychology , ex ante , law , summary judgment , social psychology , sociology , political science , economics , supreme court , structural engineering , macroeconomics , engineering
Behavioral realists urge the law to respond to new scientific discoveries about the reality of contemporary discrimination. But in thinking about how the law might respond, it is easy to frame the question as: When should evidence from scientific instruments, such as the Implicit Association Test, be admissible in a discrimination lawsuit. In other words, should we admit into evidence the results of some “Prejudice Polygraph”? But this framing, which focuses on specific facts, found ex post is too narrow and obscures a much broader range of potential legal responses. Indeed, by considering both specific and general facts, as well as both ex post and ex ante time orientations, four separate quadrants of analysis emerge. Psychologists, legal scholars, and policymakers should not miss these other quadrants of antidiscrimination.