Literature DB >> 25036715

Political diversity will improve social psychological science.

José L Duarte1, Jarret T Crawford2, Charlotta Stern3, Jonathan Haidt4, Lee Jussim5, Philip E Tetlock6.   

Abstract

Psychologists have demonstrated the value of diversity--particularly diversity of viewpoints--for enhancing creativity, discovery, and problem solving. But one key type of viewpoint diversity is lacking in academic psychology in general and social psychology in particular: political diversity. This article reviews the available evidence and finds support for four claims: (1) Academic psychology once had considerable political diversity, but has lost nearly all of it in the last 50 years. (2) This lack of political diversity can undermine the validity of social psychological science via mechanisms such as the embedding of liberal values into research questions and methods, steering researchers away from important but politically unpalatable research topics, and producing conclusions that mischaracterize liberals and conservatives alike. (3) Increased political diversity would improve social psychological science by reducing the impact of bias mechanisms such as confirmation bias, and by empowering dissenting minorities to improve the quality of the majority's thinking. (4) The underrepresentation of non-liberals in social psychology is most likely due to a combination of self-selection, hostile climate, and discrimination. We close with recommendations for increasing political diversity in social psychology.

Keywords:  academic bias; academic diversity; confirmation bias; discrimination; open science; political psychology; social psychology

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25036715     DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X14000430

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Brain Sci        ISSN: 0140-525X            Impact factor:   12.579


  24 in total

1.  Optimal incentives for collective intelligence.

Authors:  Richard P Mann; Dirk Helbing
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-05-01       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 2.  The abortion and mental health controversy: A comprehensive literature review of common ground agreements, disagreements, actionable recommendations, and research opportunities.

Authors:  David C Reardon
Journal:  SAGE Open Med       Date:  2018-10-29

3.  Is Minority Stress in the Eye of the Beholder? A Test of Minority Stress Theory with Christians.

Authors:  Mike C Parent; Melanie E Brewster; Stephen W Cook; Kevin A Harmon
Journal:  J Relig Health       Date:  2018-10

4.  A Large Scale Test of the Effect of Social Class on Prosocial Behavior.

Authors:  Martin Korndörfer; Boris Egloff; Stefan C Schmukle
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-07-20       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Why are people antiscience, and what can we do about it?

Authors:  Aviva Philipp-Muller; Spike W S Lee; Richard E Petty
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2022-07-12       Impact factor: 12.779

6.  The student-institution fit at university: interactive effects of academic competition and social class on achievement goals.

Authors:  Nicolas Sommet; Alain Quiamzade; Mickaël Jury; Gabriel Mugny
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-06-15

7.  Population, Reproductive, and Sexual Health: Data Are Essential Where Disciplines Meet and Ideologies Conflict.

Authors:  Joseph B Stanford
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2016-03-07

8.  Explanatory Judgment, Moral Offense and Value-Free Science.

Authors:  Matteo Colombo; Leandra Bucher; Yoel Inbar
Journal:  Rev Philos Psychol       Date:  2015-08-16

9.  How Miners and Other Professional Groups Perceive the Benefits and Risks of Hard Coal Mining: A Study on the Role of the Affect Heuristic.

Authors:  Piotr Zielonka; Wojciech Białaszek; Bartłomiej Dzik; Katarzyna Wybrańczyk
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-06-29

10.  Debunking the Myth of Value-Neutral Virginity: Toward Truth in Scientific Advertising.

Authors:  David R Mandel; Philip E Tetlock
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-03-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.