Best practices: How to evaluate psychological science for use by organizations

Borgida, Eugene

doi:10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.003

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 156 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We admit that both approaches to science are essential; the dimension of the ecological validity of method, and the dimension of generalisability of the conclusions. Nevertheless, we endorse the view that when it's difficult to gain both, it is more important to ensure generalisability of the principles rather than the exact operationalisations (Banaji and Crowder 1989;Fiske and Borgida 2011). Since the methodology of our study enables us to focus on well-known and general cognitive processes operational in data-based decisionmaking tasks in the laboratory, we argue that the results also generalise to naturalistic contexts where these same processes are at work outside laboratories (Banaji and Crowder 1989).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 59%

Cognitive ergonomics for data analysis. Experimental study of cognitive limitations in a data-based judgement task

Kalakoski

Henelius

Oikarinen

et al. 2019

Behaviour & Information Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Today's ever-increasing amount of data places new demands on cognitive ergonomics and requires new design ideas to ensure successful human-data interaction. Our aim was to identify the cognitive factors that must be considered when designing systems to improve decision-making based on large amounts of data. We constructed a task that simulates the typical cognitive demands people encounter in data analysis situations. We demonstrate some essential cognitive limitations using a behavioural experiment with 20 participants. The studied task presented the participants with critical and noncritical attributes that contained information on two groups of people. They had to select the response option (group) with the higher level of critical attributes. The results showed that accuracy of judgement decreased as the amount of information increased, and that judgement was affected by irrelevant information. Our results thus demonstrate critical cognitive limitations when people utilise data and suggest a cognitive bias in data-based decision-making. Therefore, when designing for cognition, we should consider the human cognitive limitations that are manifested in a data analysis context. Furthermore, we need general cognitive ergonomic guidelines for design that support the utilisation of data and improve data-based decision-making.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 59%

Cognitive ergonomics for data analysis. Experimental study of cognitive limitations in a data-based judgement task

Kalakoski

Henelius

Oikarinen

et al. 2019

Behaviour & Information Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given this abundance of social scientific effort, each of these topics features a high‐quality scientific consensus that diversity‐performance relations are mixed and produce null or very small means when aggregated across studies. Such a consensus is fully worthy of presentation to advocates and policy makers (Fiske & Borgida, ). However, social scientists have a long way to go before understanding the mediators and moderators of relations between diversity and outcomes, most especially the causal relations that are involved.…”

Section: Social Scientists As Honest Brokersmentioning

confidence: 99%

When Passionate Advocates Meet Research on Diversity, Does the Honest Broker Stand a Chance?

Eagly¹

2016

Journal of Social Issues

177

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an ideal world, social science research would provide a strong basis for advocacy and social policy. However, advocates sometimes misunderstand or even ignore scientific research in pursuit of their goals, especially when research pertains to controversial questions of social inequality. To illustrate the chasm that can develop between research findings and advocates’ claims, this article addresses two areas: (a) the effects of the gender diversity of corporate boards of directors on firms’ financial performance and (b) the effects of the gender and racial diversity of workgroups on group performance. Despite advocates’ insistence that women on boards enhance corporate performance and that diversity of task groups enhances their performance, research findings are mixed, and repeated meta‐analyses have yielded average correlational findings that are null or extremely small. Therefore, social scientists should (a) conduct research to identify the conditions under which the effects of diversity are positive or negative and (b) foster understanding of the social justice gains that can follow from diversity. Unfortunately, promulgation of false generalizations about empirical findings can impede progress in both of these directions. Rather than ignoring or furthering distortions of scientific knowledge to fit advocacy goals, scientists should serve as honest brokers who communicate consensus scientific findings to advocates and policy makers in an effort to encourage exploration of evidence‐based policy options.

show abstract

“…We must convey the accumulated scientific consensus, not just today's cutting‐edge finding that may not replicate or survive vetting. We establish scientific consensus by a variety of means (Fiske & Borgida, ): meta‐analyses, narrative literature reviews, professional society consensus reports, surveys of experts, or adversarial collaboration.…”

Section: Policy Insights From Social Psychologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Grolar bears, social class, and policy relevance: Extraordinary agendas for the emerging 21st century

Fiske

2015

Euro J Social Psych

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This Agenda article first considers whether social psychology is in the best or worst of times and suggests that we are instead in extraordinary times, given exciting agendas and potential policy relevance, if we are careful. The article illustrates with two current research agendas—the hybrid vigor of multiple categories and the psychology of social class—that could inform policy. The essay then reflects on how we know when our work is indeed ready for the public arena. Regarding hybrids: World immigration, social media, and global businesses are increasing. How will this complicate people’s stereotypes of each other? One agenda could build on the existing social and behavioral science of people as social hybrids, emerging with a framework to synthesize existing work and guide future research that better reflects our changing world. Policy implications already emerge from our current knowledge of hybrids. Regarding the social psychology of social class: We do not know enough yet to give advice, except to suggest questioning some common stereotypes, e.g., about the economic behavior of lower-income people. Before the budding social psychology of class can be ready for policy export, the research results need replication, validation, and generality. Overall, principles of exportable policy insights include peer-reviewed standards, honest brokering, nonpartisan advice, and respectful, trustworthy communication. Social psychology can take advantage of its extraordinary times to be innovative and useful.

show abstract

Best practices: How to evaluate psychological science for use by organizations

Cited by 9 publications

References 156 publications

Cognitive ergonomics for data analysis. Experimental study of cognitive limitations in a data-based judgement task

Cognitive ergonomics for data analysis. Experimental study of cognitive limitations in a data-based judgement task

When Passionate Advocates Meet Research on Diversity, Does the Honest Broker Stand a Chance?

Grolar bears, social class, and policy relevance: Extraordinary agendas for the emerging 21st century

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About