Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Political diversity will improve social psychological science 1

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

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Political diversity will improve social psychological science 1
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Political diversity will improve social psychological science 1
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Political diversity will improve social psychological science 1
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

S. I. Abramowitz , B. Gomes & C. V. Abramowitz (1975) Publish or politic: Referee bias in manuscript review. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 5(3):187200. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1975.tb00675.x.

N. Akrami , B. Ekehammar & R. Bergh (2011) Generalized prejudice: Common and specific components. Psychological Science 22(1):5759.

B. Altemeyer (1998) The other “authoritarian personality.Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 30:4792.

M. J. Brandt , C. Reyna , J. R. Chambers , J. T. Crawford & G. Wetherell (2014) The ideological-conflict hypothesis: Intolerance among both liberals and conservatives. Current Directions in Psychological Science 23(1):2734.

D. Byrne (1969) Attitudes and attraction. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 4:3589.

A. A. Cannella , J. H. Park & H. U. Lee (2008) Top management team functional background diversity and firm performance: Examining the roles of team member collocation and environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal 51(4):768–84.

N. Carl (2014) Verbal intelligence is correlated with socially and economically liberal beliefs. Intelligence 44:142–48.

S. J. Ceci , D. Peters & J. Plotkin (1985) Human subjects review, personal values, and the regulation of social science research. American Psychologist 40(9):9941002.

J. R. Chambers , B. R. Schlenker & B. Collisson (2013) Ideology and prejudice: The role of value conflicts. Psychological Science 24(2):140–49.

C. F. Clark , M. J. Kotchen & M. R. Moore (2003) Internal and external influences on pro-environmental behavior: Participation in a green electricity program. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23:237–46.

J. T. Crawford (2012) The ideologically objectionable premise model: Predicting biased political judgments on the left and right. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48(1):138–51.

J. T. Crawford , S. A. Modri & M. Motyl (2013) Bleeding-heart liberals and hard-hearted conservatives: Subtle political dehumanization through differential attributions of human nature and human uniqueness traits. Journal of Social and Political Psychology 1(1):86104. doi:10.5964/jspp.v1i1.184

J. T. Crawford & J. M. Pilanski (2014) Political intolerance, right and left. Political Psychology 35(6):841–51. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00926.x.

J. T. Crawford & E. Xhambazi (2015) Predicting political biases against the Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party movements. Political Psychology 36(1):111–21. doi:10.1111/pops.12054.

R. J. Crisp & R. N. Turner (2011) Cognitive adaptation to the experience of social and cultural diversity. Psychological Bulletin 137(2):242–66.

I. J. Deary , G. D. Batty & C. R. Gale (2008) Bright children become enlightened adults. Psychological Science 19:16.

E. L. Dey (1997) Undergraduate political attitudes: Peer influence in changing social contexts. Journal of Higher Education 68(4):398413.

P. Diaconis (1991). Replication and Meta-Analysis in Parapsychology [Comment]. Statistical Science, 386–86.

J. Duckitt (2001) A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 33:41113.

R. E. Dunlap , K. D. Van Liere , A. G. Mertig & R. E. Jones (2000) Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues 56:425–42.

A. H. Eagly (1995) The science and politics of comparing women and men. American Psychologist 50:145–58.

S. Feldman & C. Johnston (2014) Understanding the determinants of political ideology: Implications of structural complexity. Political Psychology 35(3):337–58.

I. Feygina , J. T. Jost & R. E. Goldsmith (2010) System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of “system-sanctioned change.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36(3):326–38.

S. T. Fiske , L. T. Harris & A. J. C. Cuddy (2004) Why ordinary people torture enemy prisoners. Science 306(5701):1482–83.

J. A. Frimer , D. Gaucher & N. K. Schaefer (2014) Political conservatives' affinity for obedience to authority is loyal, not blind. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 40(9):1205–14.

D. C. Funder , J. M. Levine , D. M. Mackie , C. C. Morf , C. Sansone , S. Vazire & S. G. West (2014) Improving the dependability of research in personality and social psychology: Recommendations for research and educational practice. Personality and Social Psychology Review 18:212.

G. W. Gauchat (2012) Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review 77(2):167–87.

A. G. Greenwald & L. H. Krieger (2006) Implicit bias: Scientific foundations. California Law Review 94(4):945–67.

N. Gross (2013) Why are professors liberal and why do conservatives care? Harvard University Press.

J. Haidt (2001) The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review 108(4):814–34.

P. C. Heaven , J. Ciarrochi & P. Leeson (2011) Cognitive ability, right-wing authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation: A five-year longitudinal study amongst adolescents. Intelligence 39(1):1521.

J. R. Hibbing , K. B. Smith & J. R. Alford (2014) Differences in negativity bias underlie variations in political ideology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 37(3):297350.

G. Hodson & M. A. Busseri (2012) Bright minds and dark attitudes: Lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice through right-wing ideology and low intergroup contact. Psychological Science 23(2):187–95.

Y. Inbar & J. Lammers (2012) Political diversity in social and personality psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7(5):496503.

J. P. Ioannidis (2012) Why science is not necessarily self-correcting. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7:645–54.

R. Iyer , S. Koleva , J. Graham , P. Ditto & J. Haidt (2012) Understanding libertarian morality: The psychological dispositions of self-identified libertarians. PLoS ONE 7(8):e42366. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042366

L. K. John , G. Lowenstein & D. Prelec (2012) Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science 23:524–32.

J. T. Jost & M. R. Banaji (1994) The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology 33(1):127.

J. T. Jost , J. Glaser , A. W. Kruglanski & F. J. Sulloway (2003) Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin 129(3):339–75. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339.

L. Jussim (2012a) Liberal privilege in academic psychology and the social sciences. Commentary on Inbar & Lammers (2012). Perspectives on Psychological Science 7(5):504507.

L. Jussim (2012b) Social perception and social reality: Why accuracy dominates bias and self-fulfilling prophecy. Oxford University Press.

D. M. Kahan , H. Jenkins-Smith & D. Braham (2011) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research 14(2):147–74.

J. Kang & M. R. Banaji (2006) Fair measures: A behavioral realist revision of “affirmative action.California Law Review 94(4):1063–118.

M. Kemmelmeier (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.

D. B. Klein & C. Stern (2005) Professors and their politics. The policy views of social scientists. Critical Review 17(3–4):257303.

H. Lamm & D. G. Myers (1978) Group-induced polarization of attitudes and behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 11:145–95.

M. Levendusky (2009) The partisan sort: How liberals became Democrats and conservatives became Republicans. University of Chicago Press.

S. O. Lilienfeld , R. Ammirati & K. Landfield (2009) Giving debiasing away: Can psychological research on correcting cognitive errors promote human welfare? Perspectives on Psychological Science 4(4):390–98.

N. M. Lindner & B. A. Nosek (2009) Alienable speech: Ideological variations in the application of free-speech principles. Political Psychology 30(1):6792.

R. J. MacCoun (1998) Biases in the interpretation and use of research results. Annual Review of Psychology 49(1):259–87. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.259.

E. Mannix & M. A. Neale (2005) What differences make a difference? Psychological Science in the Public Interest 6:3155.

C. McCauley & C. L. Stitt (1978) An individual and quantitative measure of stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36:929–40.

C. G. McClintock , C. B. Spaulding & H. A. Turner (1965) Political orientation of academically affiliated psychologists. American Psychologist 20:211–21.

R. R. McCrae (1996) Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin 120:323–37.

B. Mellers , R. Hertwig & D. Kahneman (2001) Do frequency representations eliminate conjunction effects? An exercise in adversarial collaboration. Psychological Science 12(4):269–75.

M. Menz (2012) Functional top management team members: A review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management 38(1):4580.

H. Mercier & D. Sperber (2011) Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34(2):5774.

G. S. Morgan , E. Mullen & L. J. Skitka (2010) When values and attributions collide: Liberals' and conservatives' values motivate attributions for alleged misdeeds. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36:1241–54.

S. Moscovici & B. Personnaz (1980) Studies in social influence: V. Minority influence and conversion behavior in a perceptual task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 16(3):270–82.

G. D. Munro , T. P. Lasane & S. P. Leary (2010) Political partisan prejudice: Selective distortion and weighting of evaluative categories in college admissions applications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 40(9):2434–62.

J. L. Napier & J. T. Jost (2008) Why are conservatives happier than liberals? Psychological Science 19(6):565–72.

C. Nemeth , K. Brown & J. Rogers (2001) Devil's advocate versus authentic dissent: Stimulating quantity and quality. European Journal of Social Psychology 31(6):707–20.

C. J. Nemeth (1995) Dissent as driving cognition, attitudes, and judgments. Social Cognition 13(3):273–91.

R. S. Nickerson (1998) Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology 2(2):175220.

D. R. Oxley , K. B. Smith , J. R. Alford , M. V. Hibbing , J. L. Miller , M. Scalora , P. K. Hatemi & J. R. Hibbing (2008) Political attitudes vary with physiological traits. Science 321(5896):1667–70.

B. E. Peterson , L. E. Duncan & J. S. Pang (2002) Authoritarianism and political impoverishment: Deficits in knowledge and civic disinterest. Political Psychology 23(1):97112.

E. Pronin , D. Y. Lin & L. Ross (2002) The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28(3):369–81.

R. E. Redding (2001) Sociopolitical diversity in psychology: The case for pluralism. American Psychologist 56(3):205–15.

R. E. Redding (2013) Politicized science. Society 50:439–46.

B. Reskin (2012) The race discrimination system. Annual Review of Sociology 38:1735.

A. Roets & A. Van Hiel (2011) Allport's prejudiced personality today: Need for closure as the motivated cognitive basis of prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science 20(6):349–54.

S. Rothman , S. R. Lichter & N. Nevitte (2005) Politics and professional advancement. Academic Questions 18(2):7184. doi:10.1007/s12129-005-1008-y. Reprinted on the occasion of the award by the National Association of Scholars of the Sidney Hook Memorial Award to Stanley Rothman, 22 May 2004. Originally published online in The Forum. Available at: http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss1/art2/.

C. S. Ryan (2002) Stereotype accuracy. European Review of Social Psychology 13:75109.

J. P. Simmons , L. D. Nelson & U. Simonsohn (2011) False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science 22(11):1359–66.

P. M. Sniderman & P. E. Tetlock (1986) Symbolic racism: Problems of motive attribution in political analysis. Journal of Social Issues 42:129–50.

L. S. Son Hing , D. R. Bobocel & M. P. Zanna (2002) Meritocracy and opposition to affirmative action: Making concessions in the face of discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83(3):493509.

L. S. Son Hing , D. R. Bobocel , M. P. Zanna & M. V. McBride (2007) Authoritarian dynamics and unethical decision making: High social dominance orientation leaders and high right-wing authoritarianism followers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92(1):6781.

D. Sperber , F. Clément , C. Heintz , O. Mascaro , H. Mercier , G. Origgi & D. Wilson (2010) Epistemic vigilance. Mind and Language 25(4):359–93.

K. Stenner (2009) Three kinds of “conservatism.Psychological Inquiry 20:142–59.

P. E. Tetlock (1983) Cognitive style and political ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45:118–26.

P. E. Tetlock (1994) Political psychology or politicized psychology: Is the road to scientific hell paved with good moral intentions? Political Psychology 15(3):509–29.

P. E. Tetlock (2007) Diversity paradoxes: Review of Scott Page's “The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies.Science 316:984.

P. E. Tetlock & G. Mitchell (1993) Liberal and conservative approaches to justice: Conflicting psychological portraits. In: Psychological perspectives on justice, ed. B. Mellers & J. Baron , pp. 234–56. Cambridge University Press.

P. E. Tetlock & G. Mitchell (2009) Implicit bias and accountability systems: What must organizations do to prevent discrimination? Research in Organizational Behavior 29:338.

H. C. Triandis , E. R. Hall & R. B. Ewen (1965) Member heterogeneity and dyadic creativity. Human Relations 18(1):3355.

A. Van Hiel , M. Pandelaere & B. Duriez (2004) The impact of need for closure on conservative beliefs and racism: Differential mediation by authoritarian submission and authoritarian dominance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30(7):824–37.

G. A. Wetherell , M. J. Brandt & C. Reyna (2013) Discrimination across the ideological divide: The role of value violations and abstract values in discrimination by liberals and conservatives. Social Psychology and Personality Science 4(6):658–67.

P. G. Zimbardo (2004) Does psychology make a significant difference in our lives? American Psychologist 59:339–51.

J. F. Zipp , & R. Fenwick (2006) Is the academy a liberal hegemony? The political orientations and educational values of professors. Public Opinion Quarterly 70(3):30326.

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? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 2041
Total number of PDF views: 3712 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 8643 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 21st September 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.