Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-2tv5m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-19T11:34:54.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diverse crowds using diverse methods improves the scientific dialectic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2015

Matt Motyl  and
Ravi Iyer
Matt Motyl
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607. motyl@uic.edu ravi@civilpolitics.org http://motyl.people.uic.edu/ www.polipsych.com
Ravi Iyer
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607. motyl@uic.edu ravi@civilpolitics.org http://motyl.people.uic.edu/ www.polipsych.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In science, diversity is vital to the development of new knowledge. We agree with Duarte et al. that we need more political diversity in social psychology, but contend that we need more religious diversity and methodological diversity as well. If some diversity is good, more is better (especially in science).

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 38 , 2015 , e151
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L. & Ziegler, A. (2012) The fewer the merrier? Assessing stigma surrounding consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 13:1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ditto, P. H. & Lopez, D. F. (1992) Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63(4):568–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domingos, P. (2012) A few useful things to know about machine learning. Communications of the ACM 55(10):78–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galton, F. (1907) Vox populi (The wisdom of crowds). Nature 75:450–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inbar, Y. & Lammers, J. (2012) Political diversity in social and personality psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7(5):496–503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iyer, R. & Graham, J. (2012) Leveraging the wisdom of crowds in a data-rich utopia. [Commentary on Nosek & Bar-Anan]. Psychological Inquiry 23:271–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanazawa, S. (2010) Why liberals and atheists are more intelligent. Social Psychology Quarterly 73:33–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larrick, R. P., Mannes, A. E. & Soll, J. B. (2011) The social psychology of the wisdom of crowds. In: Social psychology and decision making, ed. Krueger, J. I., pp. 227–42. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Lorenz, J., Rauhut, H., Schweitzer, F. & Helbing, D. (2011) How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 108:9020–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maslow, A. H. (1966) The psychology of science. Joanna Cotler Books.Google Scholar
Motyl, M. (2014) “If he wins, I'm moving to Canada”: Ideological migration threats following the 2012 US Presidential Election. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 14:123–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Oishi, S., Trawalter, S. & Nosek, B. A. (2014) How ideological migration geographically segregates groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 51:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, G. E. (1958) The Hegel legend of “thesis-antithesis-synthesis.” Journal of the History of Ideas 19:411–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pyszczynski, T. & Greenberg, J. (1987) Toward an integration of cognitive and motivational perspectives on social inference: A biased hypothesis-testing model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 20:297–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozin, P. (2001) Social psychology and science: Some lessons from Solomon Asch. Personality and Social Psychology Review 5:2–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudder, C. (2014) Dataclysm: Who we are (when we think no one's looking). Crown.Google Scholar
Society for Personality and Social Psychology. (2014) SPSP Diversity Initiatives. Society for Personality and Social Psychology. Available at: http://www.spsp.org/?page=Diversity2011.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, M., Silberman, J. & Hall, J. A. (2013) The relation between intelligence and religiosity: A meta-analysis and some proposed explanations. Personality and Social Psychology Review 17:325–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed