Figure 2 - uploaded by Jarret T Crawford
Content may be subject to copyright.
(Hilbig and Moshagen). Percentage of votes gained in most recent election conditional on party positions on the logit left-right (LLR) scale. The black lines indicate the unweighted (dashed) and weighted (dotted; weighting party positions by the proportion of actual votes received) mean across parties (mean and median differ by less than 2% of the scale). The red and blue lines indicate the LLR position of U.S. Republicans and U.S. Democrats (latest election only), respectively.
Source publication
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 sup...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... the position of U.S. Democrats and U.S. Republicans on the LLR scale to those of the 99 political parties of said 12 countries clearly reveals that U.S. Democrats are best characterized as holding a moderate (rather than left) position in a global context (results are virtually identical when considering all countries available in the manifesto database). Figure 2 plots the proportion of actual votes parties received in the most recent national elections against their position on the LLR scale. As can be seen, the "global midpoint" (both unweighted and weighted by actual votes that parties received) is close to the numerical neutral point of the left-right spectrum. ...
Context 2
... is self-evident that the political parties of these countries will not map onto the Democrat-versus-Republican categorization from the United States. Comparing the position of U.S. Demo- crats and U.S. Republicans on the LLR scale to those of the 99 political parties of said 12 countries clearly reveals that U.S. Dem- ocrats are best characterized as holding a moderate (rather than left) position in a global context (results are virtually identical when considering all countries available in the manifesto data- base). Figure 2 plots the proportion of actual votes parties re- ceived in the most recent national elections against their position on the LLR scale. As can be seen, the "global midpoint" (both unweighted and weighted by actual votes that parties re- ceived) is close to the numerical neutral point of the left-right spectrum. In turn, this is essentially the current position of U.S. Democrats. By contrast, U.S. Republicans score approximately 1 standard deviation right of this global midpoint. Thus, in compar- ison to the political spectrum of all parties across these countries (which contribute just as much to psychological science as the United States), it is clear that the U.S. spectrum (Democrats vs. ...
Citations
... Furthermore, decades of psychological research suggest that when groups contain diverse viewpoints, they perform better in a wide range of creative, problem-solving, predictive, and discovery-based tasks than do individuals and homogenous groups. (See, for example, Moscovini and Personnaz 1980;Hastie 1986;Laughlin and Ellis 1986;Nemeth 1986;Nemeth 1995;Gigone and Hastie 1997;Kuhn et al. 1997;Mosheman and Geil 1998;Jehn et al. 1999;Brodbeck et al. 2002;Greitemeyer et al. 2006;Schulz-Hardt et al. 2006;van Knippenberg and Schippers 2007;Crisp and Turner 2011;Krause et al. 2011;Trouche et al. 2014;Duarte et al. 2015;and Woolley et al. 2015.) 8 Since groups with robust viewpoint diversity typically perform better in a wide range of intellectual tasks than do individuals or homogenous groups, it would not be surprising if scientific inquiry attempted to harness this fact. And indeed, this is just what philosophers of science have postulated. ...
p>In recent years, epistemologists have devoted enormous attention to this question: what should happen when two epistemic peers disagree about the truth-value of some proposition? Some have argued that that in all such cases, both parties are rationally required to revise their position in some way. Others have maintained that, in at least some cases, neither party is rationally required to revise her position. In this paper, I examine a provocative and under-appreciated argument for the latter view due to Catherine Z. Elgin (2010, 2012, 2017, and 2018). I defend it against a series of objections, and I then identify some fruitful ways in which her view could be developed further.</p
... In the postpositivism tradition, science requires an open and pluralistic environment in which often incompatible views are expressed and conflicting aims pursued in a rational manner (Popper, 1959). The interplay of diverse viewpoints-over time-produces progressively more accurate understandings of reality (Duarte et al., 2015). Scientists interacting with each other from different social locations yield an increasingly better understanding of intervention effectiveness. ...
Quantitative research plays an instrumental role in facilitating health and wellness. Effective interventions are developed, assessed, and refined through the application of logic and empirical evidence in a scientific milieu characterized by diverse views. However, the increasing colonization of academic discourse by postmodern/critical theory (PCT) may undermine foundational concepts upon which quantitative research rests. The postpositivist tradition in which quantitative methods are embedded emphasizes probabilistic truth, logic, empirical evidence, and the interplay of diverse, frequently conflicting perspectives. Conversely, some currents of thought within PCT emphasize multiple realities, intuition, personal stories of lived experience, and the exclusion of views that challenge PCT tenets. The increasing adoption of these concepts in academia may limit or even delegitimize quantitative research as currently practiced in social work. We conclude by arguing that social work clients are best served by a scientific discourse that values multiple theoretical frameworks, research methodologies, and scientists operating from different social locations.
... Selecting a diverse collection of reviewers for a article is especially important when the editor holds a strong position on the article topic. Most psychologists are liberal in their political orientation (Duarte et al., 2015). Yet the three reviewers of Hommel (2022), chosen by Fiedler and praised by him for their contributions, were seen by Roberts (2022) to be nonliberal, not balanced, and not diverse. ...
In this open science era, psychology demands researchers be transparent in their research practices. In turn, researchers might ask if journal editors are being equally transparent in their editorial practices. Editor bias is when editors fail to be fair and impartial in their handling of articles. Editor bias can arise because of identity—who authors are—or because of content—what authors write. Proposed solutions to editor bias include masking author identity and increasing editor diversity. What is needed is greater transparency. By being more transparent, editors would be in a better position to encourage others to embrace open science.
... Its evolution has not only broadened its application but also raised the socio-political stakes of its use. This article contends that the predominant attitude toward conspiracy theories reflects a form of moral panic (Cohen, 1972), being overly negative compared to what the empirical literature we review suggests and leading to harmful repercussions on democratic processes and the integrity of intellectual discourse among scholars, issues that become even more pressing against the backdrop of an increasingly polarized society and decreasing political diversity in academia (Duarte et al., 2015;Inbar & Lammers, 2012). ...
... Such tactics underscored the broader implications of labeling certain perspectives as conspiratorial. Claims regarding the pandemic's origin, transmission, and the effectiveness and safety of interventions were often dismissed with limited consideration for alternate hypotheses, highlighting a significant challenge to viewpoint diversity-a concern particularly acute in the academic sphere Duarte et al., 2015;Norris, 2020Norris, , 2023. Notable examples include the zoonotic vs. lab leak origins of Covid-19. ...
... By stigmatizing certain viewpoints as conspiratorial, academic and public discourse may be marginalized and silenced through self-censorship among researchers, impoverishing intellectual diversity. With scholars becoming more homogeneous in worldviews despite commitments to diversity and inclusion (Abrams, 2016;Carl, 2018;Duarte et al., 2015), censorship in academia is becoming more extensive and institutionalized, as shown by a worrying uptrend in sanctions against scholars for their pedagogic and critical approaches (German & Stevens, 2021;Norris, 2023). ...
Against the backdrop of the Covid-19 pandemic, this article undertakes a critical evaluation of a series of shortcomings of the view of conspiracy theories that is predominant among scholars and the general public. Reviewing numerous studies on the topic, we critically assess: (a) how justified the claim is that we are in a conspiracy-thinking emergency, (b) how the label of conspiracy theorist can be weaponized to delegitimize heterodox views, and (c) the practical consequences, for academic research and the well-functioning of democracies, of unpopular ideas being labeled as conspiratorial. The empirical sources reviewed here suggest that beliefs in conspiracy theories have not increased over time and are less consequential than commonly believed, even in times of a global pandemic. Instead, the concept of conspiracy theory has become more prevalent and its derogatory connotation evokes a stigma that tilts the democratic playing field against dissenting viewpoints. The stigmatization and political leveraging of this notion, we argue, lead to biases not only in the public discussion on various sensitive topics but also in the academic literature on conspiracy theories themselves. We analyze these academic blind spots in light of the diminishing political diversity in academia and recent perspectives on scientific censorship. We propose to complement the research on conspiracy theorists with an analysis of individuals at the opposite end of the spectrum, who are inclined to systematically trust institutional authorities and are highly prejudiced against heterodox opinions. Proposed solutions include promoting balanced news coverage, fostering critical thinking through debates, and piercing information bubbles to provide access to diverse perspectives.
... ADVERSARIAL COLLABORATION challenge the perspective that there is no gender bias in tenure-track hiring are less likely to be posed, tested, and published due to the extreme asymmetry in sociopolitical leanings among researchers in the academy (Duarte et al., 2015). A reviewer's sociopolitical orientation predicts their willingness to accept articles for publication, selection of participants for symposia, ratings of grant proposals, whom they would prefer to hire on tenure track (Honeycutt & Freberg, 2017;Inbar & Lammers, 2012), and which research conclusions they would discourage peers from pursuing (Clark, Fjeldmark, et al., 2024). ...
Open Science initiatives such as preregistration, publicly available procedures and data, and power analyses have rightly been lauded for increasing the reliability of findings. However, a potentially equally important initiative—aimed at increasing the validity of science—has largely been ignored. Adversarial collaborations (ACs) refer to team science in which members are chosen to represent diverse (and even contradictory) perspectives and hypotheses, with or without a neutral team member to referee disputes. Here, we provide background about ACs and argue that they are effective, essential, and underutilized. We explain how and why ACs can enhance both the reliability and validity of science and why their benefit extends beyond the realm of team science to include venues such as fact-checking, wisdom of crowds, journal reviewing, and sequential editing. Improving scientific validity would increase the efficacy of policy and interventions stemming from behavioral science research, and over time, it could help salvage the reputation of our discipline because its products would be perceived as resulting from a serious, open-minded consideration of diverse views.
... organization appear and perhaps be more politicized, further escalating polarization regarding which organizations and institutions are trustworthy (e.g., Bermiss & McDonald, 2018;Duarte et al., 2014). Such a possibility further raises the question of whether institutional politicization undermines public coordination and cooperation at key moments, such as during national or global public health crises. ...
Organizations and their leaders have begun publicly signaling political values in candidate endorsements, statements, and advertisements, yet political action often has negative organizational consequences, including lower public support, financial costs, and reduced trust. We review the costs of organizational politicization, moderators of those costs (such as ideological alignment and size of the organization), and potential reasons why leaders take political action. Scholars often attribute political action to public pressure to “take a stand”, but this public pressure may be misunderstood. Members of the public who want organizations to take political stances desire particular stances to be made in particular ways, tend to believe in the superiority of their own values, and are relatively likely to boycott businesses for political reasons. Catering to these individuals could lead to the accumulation of supporters who are especially politically zealous and likely to punish perceived political missteps. Demands to “take a stand” might seem like one unified call to action, but they may instead be a large set of directly conflicting demands. We make recommendations for future research to better understand leaders' reasons for political action and when, if ever, such actions support the interests of organizations and broader society.
... Climate change is a unique case because scant attention does not appear to reflect epistemic exclusion, as with feminist sociology in the mid-20th century (Mezey, 2020). 13 Indeed, sociologists as a group are likely disproportionately liberal and concerned about climate change (e.g., see Duarte et al., 2015, on the liberal leanings of psychologists). ...
Climate change is increasingly recognized as not only a biophysical and technological problem but also a social one. Nonetheless, sociologists have expressed concern that sociology has paid relatively little attention to climate change. This deficit threatens to limit the frames available to understand and imagine solutions to the climate crisis. In this paper I report the most up-to-date and expansive empirical assessment of attention to climate change in sociology in the United States (U.S.). I find little to no mention of climate change across leading sociology journal articles (0.89%), conference sessions (1.5%), and faculty biographies (2.8%) and course listings (0.2%) in the 20 top-ranked departments in the U.S. Two leading journals, the American Sociological Review and American Journal of Sociology, have cumulatively published just three articles focused on climate change to date. This level of disciplinary attention appears low compared to the field’s engagement with other important social problems. My findings thus suggest that climate silence is persistent and pervasive in U.S. sociology. I discuss the implications of this silence and outline opportunities for sociologists, funders, journalists, and policymakers to embrace social science perspectives in climate change teaching, research, and policymaking.
... Scientific claims often directly contradict other scientific claims . Many scientists, public intellectuals, and philosophers of science believe that disagreement and viewpoint diversity fuel scientific progress by motivating competing scholars to scrutinize and identify flaws in opponents' claims and to collect more and better data (Ceci & Williams, 2022;Duarte et al., 2015;Lamers et al., 2021;Rauch, 2021;Sarewitz, 2011). Although scientific disagreement can be constructive, it can also be detrimental. ...
We identify points of conflict and consensus regarding (a) controversial empirical claims and (b) normative preferences for how controversial scholarship—and scholars—should be treated. In 2021, we conducted qualitative interviews ( n = 41) to generate a quantitative survey ( N = 470) of U.S. psychology professors’ beliefs and values. Professors strongly disagreed on the truth status of 10 candidate taboo conclusions: For each conclusion, some professors reported 100% certainty in its veracity and others 100% certainty in its falsehood. Professors more confident in the truth of the taboo conclusions reported more self-censorship, a pattern that could bias perceived scientific consensus regarding the inaccuracy of controversial conclusions. Almost all professors worried about social sanctions if they were to express their own empirical beliefs. Tenured professors reported as much self-censorship and as much fear of consequences as untenured professors, including fear of getting fired. Most professors opposed suppressing scholarship and punishing peers on the basis of moral concerns about research conclusions and reported contempt for peers who petition to retract papers on moral grounds. Younger, more left-leaning, and female faculty were generally more opposed to controversial scholarship. These results do not resolve empirical or normative disagreements among psychology professors, but they may provide an empirical context for their discussion.
... We offer here recommendations for future research to further examine how psychological scientists communicate about their samples but also how they might be encouraged to communicate about them more equally. First, our sample consisted exclusively of PhD students who were on average 28 years old, and it is likely that these students held relatively progressive views about racial diversity, at least compared to more senior psychologists and professors (Duarte et al., 2015). We suspect that the overall support for a policy that would require researchers to make the racial and ethnic demographics of their sample transparent might be tempered in older and more conservative samples. ...
Research titles with White samples, compared to research titles with samples of color, have been less likely to include the racial identity of the sample. This unequal writing practice has serious ramifications for both the history and future of psychological science, as it solidifies in the permanent scientific record the false notion that research with White samples is more generalizable and valuable than research with samples of color. In the present research, we experimentally tested the extent to which PhD students (63% White students, 27% students of color) engaged in this unequal writing practice, as well as the extent to which this practice might be disrupted by journal policies. In Study 1, PhD students who read about research conducted with a White sample, compared to those who read about the exact same research conducted with a Black sample, were significantly less likely to mention the sample’s racial identity when generating research titles, keywords, and summaries. In Study 2, PhD students instructed to mention the racial identity of their samples, and PhD students instructed to not mention the identity of their samples (though to a lesser extent), were less likely to write about the White versus Black samples unequally. Across both studies, we found that PhD students were overall supportive of a policy to make the racial demographics of samples more transparent, believing that it would help to reduce racial biases in the field.
... Although all these theories have different approaches to psychology, social cognition is the dominant theory focused on and practiced. Even though discoveries and perspectives have changed ideas and theories about social psychology, interpretations of original social psychology have not been forgotten and have only been added to the modern understanding of social psychology (Duarte et al., 2014;Weick, 2015). ...
Understanding humans through social influence is always needed. Through an analysis of specific topics of social psychology, a bridge between issues can be created. This research aims to understand the various layers in social psychology using secondary data. The methodology used in this study is qualitative research, particularly literature review. The subject of this study is some literatures in databases, and other scholarly articles to use as supporting evidence for this work about the study of social psychology. The results provide understanding of layers on social psychology including how individuals interact and function in the day-today lives. Human can learn how to better recognize the information process happening in their brains and how to manipulate it in different social situations. The depth of how human relate to each other, and their surroundings is seen through social psychology's "social" aspect. Individuals thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are unique and influenced by social norms' real or imagined presence. This study has theoretical implication on how social psychology has layers to explain how human interact in social context. Abstrak. Pemahaman tentang manusia melalui pengaruh sosial selalu dibutuhkan. Melalui analisis topik-topik tertentu psikologi sosial, jembatan antar permasalahan dapat diciptakan. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk memahami berbagai lapisan dalam psikologi sosial dengan menggunakan data sekunder. Metodologi yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif khususnya tinjauan pustaka. Subyek penelitian ini adalah beberapa literatur dalam database, dan artikel ilmiah lainnya yang digunakan sebagai bukti pendukung karya tentang studi psikologi sosial ini. Hasilnya memberikan pemahaman tentang lapisan psikologi sosial termasuk bagaimana individu berinteraksi dan berfungsi dalam kehidupan sehari-hari. Manusia dapat belajar bagaimana mengenali dengan lebih baik proses informasi yang terjadi di otaknya dan bagaimana memanipulasinya dalam berbagai situasi sosial. Kedalaman hubungan manusia satu sama lain, dan lingkungannya dilihat melalui aspek "sosial" psikologi sosial. Pikiran, perasaan, dan perilaku individu bersifat unik dan dipengaruhi oleh kehadiran norma-norma sosial yang nyata atau yang dibayangkan. Kajian ini mempunyai implikasi teoritis mengenai bagaimana psikologi sosial mempunyai lapisan-lapisan untuk menjelaskan bagaimana manusia berinteraksi dalam konteks sosial. 2 Social psychology is grounded in the conception of cognition, emotion, and behavior. Individuals' social psychology is primarily based on their social group and community. Within these communities, collective thoughts, emotions, and behavior are representative of a collective identity. These collective identities and social reference groups constitute a significant aspect of understanding social psychology. Understanding the root of social psychology is recognizing that socially "anchored" beliefs and certain social rituals are determined by how individuals process themselves and others. Everyday social interaction is a critical aspect of human life and how personality and behavior are displayed. There are two critical distinctions when discussing social groups: (1) intrinsically social groups are people who share socially engaged beliefs, attitudes, emotions, and behavior, like the subscription to a particular religion, while (2) derivatively social groups have members with socially significant properties, like being a woman. These two distinctions allow us to understand further how the different communities around us shape our paradigms. Without these groups, our identities and beliefs would be incredibly different. When people are in the presence of their social reference groups, they show their emotions and behavior based on all the people around them. Many different theoretical traditions have been claimed, such as social representation theory, social identity, cultural psychology, and social constructionism (Greenwood, 2014). Although all these theories have different approaches to psychology, social cognition is the dominant theory focused on and practiced. Even though discoveries and perspectives have changed ideas and theories about social psychology, interpretations of original social psychology have not been forgotten and have only been added to the modern understanding of social psychology (Duarte et al., 2014; Weick, 2015). When it comes to mental representation, people make judgments and assumptions based on specific memories that they may have and try to connect them. When people are introduced to new information, they try to pull it from their memory to see if they can trace it with anything they already know about it. As people, we make observations and then formulate judgments from social information that our brains receive. This influences our perception of someone solely from our memory and an experience that was either good or bad that stuck with us.