Skip to main content
×
Home

It may be harder than we thought, but political diversity will (still) improve social psychological science 1

  • Jarret T. Crawford (a1), José L. Duarte (a2), Jonathan Haidt (a3), Lee Jussim (a4), Charlotta Stern (a5) and Philip E. Tetlock (a6)...
Abstract
Abstract

In our target article, we made four claims: (1) Social psychology is now politically homogeneous; (2) this homogeneity sometimes harms the science; (3) increasing political diversity would reduce this damage; and (4) some portion of the homogeneity is due to a hostile climate and outright discrimination against non-liberals. In this response, we review these claims in light of the arguments made by a diverse group of commentators. We were surprised to find near-universal agreement with our first two claims, and we note that few challenged our fourth claim. Most of the disagreements came in response to our claim that increasing political diversity would be beneficial. We agree with our critics that increasing political diversity may be harder than we had thought, but we explain why we still believe that it is possible and desirable to do so. We conclude with a revised list of 12 recommendations for improving political diversity in social psychology, as well as in other areas of the academy.

Copyright
Footnotes
Hide All
1.

All authors contributed substantially to this Response and are listed in alphabetical order.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Ahn H.-K., Kim H. J. & Aggarwal P. (2014) Helping fellow beings: Anthropomorphized social causes and the role of anticipatory guilt. Psychological Science 25(1):224–29.
Brandt M. J. & Crawford J. (2013) Replication-extension of “Not for All the Tea in China!” Political ideology and the avoidance of dissonance-arousing situations (Nam, Jost, & Van Bavel, 2013, PLoS One). Social Science Research Network, Online article, December 6, 2013. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2365281
Brandt M. J., Reyna C., Chambers J. R., Crawford J. T. & Wetherell G. (2014) The ideological-conflict hypothesis: Intolerance among both liberals and conservatives. Current Directions in Psychological Science 23(1):2734.
Crano W. D. (2012) The rules of influence: Winning when you are in the minority. St. Martin's Press.
Crawford J. T. (2012) The ideologically objectionable premise model: Predicting biased political judgments on the left and right. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48(1):138–51.
Crawford J. T. (2014) Ideological symmetries and asymmetries in political intolerance and prejudice toward political activist groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 55:284–98.
Crawford J. T., Brandt M. J., Chambers J. R., Inbar Y., Motyl M. & Wance N. M. (in preparation a) A multi-dimensional approach to political prejudice: Social and economic ideologies differentially predict prejudice across the political spectrum.
Crawford J. T., Collins T. P. & Brandt M. J. (in preparation b) Ideological symmetry in people's avoidance of dissonance-arousing situations: A failure to closely or conceptually replicate Nam, Jost, and Van Bavel (2013).
Eagly A. H. (1995) The science and politics of comparing women and men. American Psychologist 50:145–58.
Eagly A. H. (2011) A mis-citation classic. In: Most underappreciated: 50 prominent social psychologists describe their most unloved work, ed. Arkin R. M., pp. 250–53. Oxford University Press.
Feldman S. & Johnston C. (2014) Understanding the determinants of political ideology: Implications of structural complexity. Political Psychology 35(3):337–58.
Gaertner S. L., Mann J. A., Murrell A. & Dovidio J. F. (1989) Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57:239–49.
Graham J., Haidt J. & Nosek B. A. (2009) Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96:1029–46.
Greenwald A. G., Banaji M. R. & Nosek B. A. (2015) Statistically small effects of the Implicit Association Test can have societally large effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 108:553–61.
Gross N. & Simmons S. (2007) The social and political views of American professors. Working Paper presented at a Harvard University Symposium on Professors and Their Politics, October 6, 2007.
Inbar Y. & Lammers J. (2012) Political diversity in social and personality psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7(5):496503.
Ioannidis J. P. (2012) Why science is not necessarily self-correcting. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7:645–54.
Jost J. T., Glaser J., Kruglanski A. W. & Sulloway F. J. (2003) Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin 129(3):339–75. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339.
Jussim L. (2012a) Liberal privilege in academic psychology and the social sciences. Commentary on Inbar & Lammers (2012). Perspectives on Psychological Science 7(5):504507.
Jussim L. (2012b) Social perception and social reality: Why accuracy dominates bias and self-fulfilling prophecy. Oxford University Press.
Jussim L., Crawford J. T., Anglin S. M., Chambers J., Stevens S. T. & Cohen F. (in press a) Stereotype accuracy: One of the largest relationships in all of social psychology. In: Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination, 2nd edition, ed. Nelson T.. Erlbaum.
Kahneman D. (2012) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kemmelmeier M. (2008) Is there a relationship between political orientation and cognitive ability? A test of three hypotheses in two studies. Personality and Individual Differences 45:767–72.
Malka A., Lelkes Y., Srivastava S., Cohen A. B. & Miller D. T. (2012) The association of religiosity and political conservatism: The role of political engagement. Political Psychology 33:275–99.
Malka A. & Soto C. J. (2015) Rigidity of the economic right? Menu-independent and menu-dependent influences of psychological dispositions on political attitudes. Current Directions in Psychological Science 24:137–42.
Mannix E. & Neale M. A. (2005) What differences make a difference? Psychological Science in the Public Interest 6:3155.
Menz M. (2012) Functional top management team members: A review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management 38(1):4580.
Nam H. H., Jost J. T. & Van Bavel J. J. (2013) “Not for all the tea in China!” Political ideology and the avoidance of dissonance-arousing situations. PLoS One 8:e59837.
Nickerson R. S. (1998) Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology 2(2):175220.
Oswald F., Mitchell P. G., Blanton H., Jaccard J. & Tetlock P. E. (2013) Predicting ethnic and racial discrimination: A meta-analysis of IAT criterion studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 105:171–92.
Pronin E., Lin D. Y. & Ross L. (2002) The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28(3):369–81.
Redding R. E. (2001) Sociopolitical diversity in psychology: The case for pluralism. American Psychologist 56(3):205–15.
Rothman S. & Lichter S. R. (2008) The vanishing conservative: Is there a glass ceiling? In: The politically correct university: Problems, scope, and reforms, ed. Maranto R., Redding R. E. & Hess F. M., pp. 6076. AEI Press.
Simmons J. P., Nelson L. D. & Simonsohn U. (2011) False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science 22(11):1359–66.
Tetlock P. E. (1994) Political psychology or politicized psychology: Is the road to scientific hell paved with good moral intentions? Political Psychology 15(3):509–29.
Tetlock P. E. & Mitchell G. (2009) Implicit bias and accountability systems: What must organizations do to prevent discrimination? Research in Organizational Behavior 29:338.
Van Hiel A., Onraet E. & De Pauw S. (2010) The relationship between social-cultural attitudes and behavioral measures of cognitive style: A meta-analytic integration of studies. Journal of Personality 78:1765–99.
Williams K. Y. & O'Reilly C. A. (1998) Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior 20:77140.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences
  • ISSN: 0140-525X
  • EISSN: 1469-1825
  • URL: /core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 17
Total number of PDF views: 148 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 1678 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 23rd November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.