This is why I believe in "implicit bias" (just not the form advanced by most academics). Psychologists SAY the right things. Then keep citing studies that violate several of these standards. Thread with examples.
1/n ending in END.
1/n ending in END.
https://twitter.com/PsychRabble/status/1407679855211188224
All Citation Counts are from Google Scholar, 2016 and later -- i.e., AFTER the Replication Crisis and Methodological Reforms.
Reminder: Typical articles are hardly cited. An article cited>100 is influential; >1000 VERY influential.
Reminder: Typical articles are hardly cited. An article cited>100 is influential; >1000 VERY influential.
Stereotype Threat, Steele & Aronson 1995.
Citations: 4770
Low Power
Methods, data not publicly available
No representative samples.
Effect sizes not reported
Not preregistered
Citations: 4770
Low Power
Methods, data not publicly available
No representative samples.
Effect sizes not reported
Not preregistered
Moss-Racusin et al, 2012, Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students
Citations: 2100
Methods, data not publicly available
No representative samples.
Effect sizes not reported
Not preregistered
Citations: 2100
Methods, data not publicly available
No representative samples.
Effect sizes not reported
Not preregistered
Schwartz & Clore, 1983
Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states.
Citations: 1520
Methods, data not publicly available
No representative samples.
Effect sizes not reported
Not preregistered
Tiny samples/low power
Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states.
Citations: 1520
Methods, data not publicly available
No representative samples.
Effect sizes not reported
Not preregistered
Tiny samples/low power
Bargh et al 1996, Infamous, irreplicable Florida/age stereotypes priming paper.
Citations: 850
Methods, data not publicly available
No representative samples.
Effect sizes not reported
Not preregistered
Tiny samples/low power
Citations: 850
Methods, data not publicly available
No representative samples.
Effect sizes not reported
Not preregistered
Tiny samples/low power
Spencer, Steele, Quinn, 1999. Stereotype threat analysis of women's math performance.
Citations: 1880
Methods, data not publicly available
No representative samples.
Effect sizes not reported
All P's barely below .05.
Not preregistered
Tiny samples/low power
Citations: 1880
Methods, data not publicly available
No representative samples.
Effect sizes not reported
All P's barely below .05.
Not preregistered
Tiny samples/low power
Devine, 1990. Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components.
Citations: 2390
Methods, data not publicly available
No representative samples.
Effect sizes not reported
Not preregistered
Low Power in all 3 studies
p=.03 for key result of key study (2).
Citations: 2390
Methods, data not publicly available
No representative samples.
Effect sizes not reported
Not preregistered
Low Power in all 3 studies
p=.03 for key result of key study (2).
I am sure there are plenty more where that came from.
What is the nature of the "implicit bias" here?
1. Flashy studies get cited.
2. Studies advancing social justice narratives get cited.
Methods hardly matter.
3. Studies catching "fad" waves get cited.
END
What is the nature of the "implicit bias" here?
1. Flashy studies get cited.
2. Studies advancing social justice narratives get cited.
Methods hardly matter.
3. Studies catching "fad" waves get cited.
END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
