Logo image
What Constitutes a Scientific Review? A Majority Retort to Barrett and Morris
Journal article   Peer reviewed

What Constitutes a Scientific Review? A Majority Retort to Barrett and Morris

Susan T Fiske, Donald N Bersoff, Eugene Borgida, Kay Deaux and Madeline E Heilman
Law and human behavior, v 17(2)
Apr 1993

Abstract

Barrett and Morris attack the American Psychological Association amicus brief in Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins as failing to adhere to the values of science in three respects. First they claim that the amicus used theories in convenient but logically inconsistent ways. A straightforward reading of the theories indicates that Bairett and Morris simply confuse the descriptive (e.g., "women typically are incompetent") and prescriptive (e.g., "women should be nice") aspects of gender stereotypes. Second, Barrett and Morris claim that APA used facts disputed by the employer, thereby biasing the brief. However, these facts were accepted at all levels of the court system, thereby establishing them as "fact" for the record, to which the Supreme Court and the APA were then bound. Third, Barrett and Morris claim the amicus literature review was biased. Yet, rather than support that claim with a full review, they present highly selected results that are biased, incomplete, misleading, and inaccurate. Moreover, independent, quantitative reviews undertaken since the brief support its central arguments and dispute the Barrett-Morris interpretations. In short, none of their arguments are supported.

Metrics

11 Record Views
15 citations in Scopus

Details

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This publication has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#5 Gender Equality
#10 Reduced Inequalities

InCites Highlights

Data related to this publication, from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool:

Collaboration types
Domestic collaboration
Web of Science research areas
Law
Psychology, Social
Logo image