Selective interest and psychological practice: a new interpretation of the Burt affair.

Anomalies in Burt's twin data have precipitated a prolonged and inconclusive controversy between those who accuse him of fabrication and those who defend his integrity. Here it is suggested that the argument arose in part because differing personal, and especially political, interests predisposed psychologists to diverse interpretations of the evidence. 'Selective interest' (James, 1890) leads to a concentration of attention on partial data. The participants in the controversy readily detected this fault in their opponents, but rarely in themselves. It is then suggested that this same factor accounts for the deficiencies in Burt's kinship data. His research was especially vulnerable to 'selective interest', and the numerical anomalies in his reports are consistent with this interpretation. It is questioned whether scientific techniques can ever wholly replace personal judgment, with its potential for selective bias.