Abstract
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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
