Implicit Bias, Character, and Control

Holroyd, Jules; Kelly, Dan H.

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198746812.003.0006

Cited by 47 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…11 We will summarize some main results. For more detailed overviews, see Holroyd (2012), Holroyd and Dan Kelly (2016), and Alex Madva (2017). 12 For a comparable argument, though not explicitly in terms of proportionality, see Filippo Santoni de Sio, Philip Robichaud, and Vincent (2014, 191-95).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Enhancing Responsibility

Kloosterboer¹,

Wieland²

2017

Journal of Social Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… We will summarize some main results. For more detailed overviews, see Holroyd (), Holroyd and Dan Kelly (), and Alex Madva ().…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing Responsibility

Kloosterboer¹,

Wieland²

2017

Journal of Social Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These modes of indirect control—manipulating one's environment or one's cognitions in order to secure desirable patterns of thought and behaviour—have been identified by Holroyd and Kelly () as forms of “ecological control.” They argue that this kind of control is in fact mundane, oft‐deployed (e.g., consider organising one's office to ward off procrastinatory tendencies), and sufficient for meeting control conditions for moral responsibility.…”

Section: Folk Versus Revisionist Conceptions Of Responsibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These modes of indirect control-manipulating one's environment or one's cognitions in order to secure desirable patterns of thought and behaviour-have been identified by Holroyd and Kelly (2016) as forms of "ecological control. "…”

Section: Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsibility for implicit bias

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A note on versions:The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the repository url above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription.For more information, please contact eprints@nottingham.ac.uk Jules.Holroyd@nottingham.ac.uk Responsibility for Implicit BiasPhilosophers who have written about implicit bias have claimed or implied that individuals are not responsible, and therefore not blameworthy, for their implicit biases, and that this is a function of the nature of implicit bias as implicit: below the radar of conscious reflection, out of the control of the deliberating agent, and not rationally revisable in the way many of our reflective beliefs are.

show abstract

“…Just as we cannot directly observe or track our biases through introspection but instead must rely on indirect empirical measures, we cannot directly control our biases through sheer acts of will. What we will call “ecological solutions,” then, are strategies for mitigating the influence of implicit social cognition by allowing us to exert a different kind of control, what philosopher Andy Clark has dubbed “ecological control,” over our actions, and bring them in line with our explicitly held beliefs . Because gift giving between the medical industry and medical professionals implicates implicit cognitive mechanisms, ecological solutions should be preferred.…”

Section: Examining the Cognitive Ecologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Implicit Cognition and Gifts: How Does social Psychology help Us Think Differently about Medical Practice?

Morar¹,

Washington²

2016

Hastings Center Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article takes the following two assumptions for granted: first, that gifts influence physicians and, second, that the influences gifts have on physicians may be harmful for patients. These assumptions are common in the applied ethics literature, and they prompt an obvious practical question, namely, what is the best way to mitigate the negative effects? We examine the negative effects of gift giving in depth, considering how the influence occurs, and we assert that the ethical debate surrounding gift-giving practices must be reoriented. Our main claim is that the failure of recent policies addressing gift giving can be traced to a misunderstanding of what psychological mechanisms are most likely to underpin physicians' biased behavior as a result of interaction with the medical industry. The problem with gift giving is largely not a matter of malicious or consciously self-interested behavior, but of well-intentioned actions on the part of physicians that are nonetheless perniciously infected by the presence of the medical industry. Substantiating this claim will involve elaboration on two points. First, we will retrace the history of policies regarding gift giving between the medical profession and the medical industry and highlight how most policies assume a rationalistic view of moral agency. Reliance on this view of agency is best illustrated by past attempts to address gift giving in terms of conflicts of interest. Second, we will introduce and motivate an alternate view of moral agency emerging from recent literature in social psychology on implicit social cognition. We will show that proper consideration of implicit social cognition paints a picture of human psychology at odds with the rationalistic model assumed in discussions of COIs. With these two pieces on the table we will be able to show that, without fully appreciating the social-psychological mechanisms (both cognitive and affective) of implicit cognition, policy-makers are likely to overlook significant aspects of how gifts influence doctors.

show abstract

Implicit Bias, Character, and Control

Cited by 47 publications

References 46 publications

Enhancing Responsibility

Enhancing Responsibility

Responsibility for implicit bias

Implicit Cognition and Gifts: How Does social Psychology help Us Think Differently about Medical Practice?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About