Figure 1 - uploaded by Laura A. Freberg
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
Inbar and Lammers asked members of APA Division 8 (personality and social psychology) about their political orientation, hostility experienced related to their political orientation, and their willingness to discriminate against others based on perceived political orientation. In this replication and extension, 618 faculty members from various acad...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... ideology was significantly and negatively correlated with all four measures of discrimination against conservatives: papers, r (534) Inbar and Lammers (2012) also noted that sizable percen- tages of participants responded to the willingness to discrimi- nate items by choosing 4 (somewhat) to 7 (very much). The most dramatic findings were the 33.3% of liberals who indi- cated they were somewhat to very willing to discriminate against a conservative job candidate, and the 32% of conserva- tives who indicated they were somewhat to very willing to dis- criminate against a liberal job candidate (Figure 1). ...
Citations
... Specifically, content portraying politically hostile environments within US universities may lead academics to self-censor to avoid negative sanctions. For example, academics who believe their colleagues are hostile towards their political orientation report feeling pressure to self-censor [5,6]. Although attention has been given to the academic freedom and free speech of university faculty [7][8][9], the amount of empirical research on students self-censoring their political views due to perceived discrimination and hostility is sparse. ...
According to recent polling, many individuals perceive that universities may limit the freedom of speech of students who hold certain political views. Whereas research has shown that university members who perceive political hostility are more likely to self-censor, few studies have examined how perceived political discrimination affects students’ self-censorship. Thus, this study explored whether perceived political discrimination felt by college students predicts self-censorship in university settings. In Study 1 (N = 163), we found that students who perceived more frequent discrimination reported more self-censorship, regardless of political orientation. In Study 2 (N = 169), we found that Republican students, but not Democrat or Independent students, who believed that they were political minorities at their university were more likely to self-censor if they perceived political discrimination. These findings provide insights into the ongoing discussions about academic freedom and freedom of speech.
... Thus, academia might be an especially liberalizing environment. Indeed, American estimates suggest the majority of faculty identify as liberals [84], a pattern that is especially pronounced in the social sciences [85]. ...
Despite well-documented disparities disadvantaging women (e.g. discrepancies between men and women in salaries and leadership roles), we argue that there are contexts in which disparities disadvantage men. We review the literature suggesting harm to women is perceived as more severe and unacceptable than identical harm to men, a bias potentially rooted in evolutionary, base rate, stereotype-based and cultural shift explanations. We explore how these biases manifest in protective responses toward women and harsher judgements toward men, particularly in contexts of victimization and perpetration. Our review aims to complement the existing literature on gender biases by presenting a balanced view that acknowledges men and women face unique challenges. By understanding these biases, we hope to foster a more equitable discourse on gender and harm, encouraging empathy and validation of suffering irrespective of gender. This holistic approach aims to de-escalate gender-based conflicts and promote effective interventions for both men and women.
... This figure reaches 43% among PhD students, suggesting the trend will continue as new generations replace older colleagues (Kaufmann, 2021). Scholars' approval of discrimination within recruitment, career advancement, grant allocation, and publishing based on political views (Honeycutt & Freberg, 2017;Inbar & Lammers, 2012;Yancey, 2011) compounds this concern. A national survey among US university faculty found that 91% of respondents consider themselves at least "somewhat likely" to self-censor in various academic contexts, with 25% being "very" or "extremely" likely to do so (Honeycutt et al., 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 used strategically 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
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 soft 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 uncritically trust institutional authorities and are 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). Thus, the literature that gets meta-analyzed can be lopsided and disproportionately framed by those who are sociopolitically progressive. ...
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.
... As they note correctly, when academics themselves argue that certain scientific claims can be dangerous and socially harmful, it creates obvious incentives for ideological suppression of research findings. Scientists' political views are largely unrepresentative of those of the general population (Honeycutt and Freberg 2017). Williams and Ceci (2023) have identified lack of political diversity and politically motivated social media as key factors leading to ideological bias in recent social science research. ...
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) questions have taken on increasing importance within the mathematics community recently and generated substantial debate. This article focuses on data collection, data analysis and evidence-based policy for EDI in the context of the UK mathematics higher education sector. It proposes that targeted latitudinal surveys and longitudinal studies would be useful to quantify experiences of disadvantage or discrimination but cautions against hasty conclusions from the data obtained. It notes that topics related to equality and diversity are politically controversial and emphasizes the importance of academic freedom in data analysis. It argues that EDI action should be based on evidence of disadvantage or discrimination rather than on the existence of quantitative disparities in outcomes. Finally, it reflects upon the importance of gathering balanced data on the effects of EDI policies in order to measure their costs and benefits.
... Scholars can learn about ongoing and emerging debates in journals that publish replies and commentaries, but these cases of scientific disputation are curated for particular perspectives and include only a small number of scholars. These public exchanges likely systematically underrepresent existing but socially costly scientific perspectives, such as views that contradict widely shared progressive values (Honeycutt & Freberg, 2017). In the present work, we administered an anonymous online survey to reduce (although probably not eliminate) socially desirable responding and more thoroughly document psychologists' beliefs and perspectives. ...
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.
... Despite the overall weariness toward retraction among individuals within these demographic categories toward information hazards (Namuth et al., 2023), the ostensibly more salient conflict between personal and institutional values could impede a fuller scope of understanding how a gender-balanced sample scientists may respond to these scenarios across the political spectrum. The predominantly left-leaning nature of large swaths of the academy could present a difficult task for future research (Honeycutt & Freberg, 2017;Honeycutt & Jussim, 2022;Inbar & Lammers, 2012). Nonetheless, the relative consistency between these findings and previous work leads us to have a measure of confidence in our results. ...
Retractions have traditionally been reserved for correcting the scientific record and discouraging research misconduct. Nonetheless, the potential for actual societal harm resulting from accurately reported published scientific findings, so-called information hazards, has been the subject of several recent article retractions. As these instances increase, the extent of support for such decisions among the scientific community and lay public remains unclear. Undergraduates (Study 1) and federally funded researchers (Study 2) reported their support for retraction decisions described as due to misconduct, honest errors, or potential information hazards. Participants supported retraction on the former two grounds more than the latter. Despite limited support, women remained more receptive to retractions based on information hazards. Activist tendencies additionally predicted undergraduate men’s receptivity. Receptivity toward retraction due to information hazards was unrelated to scientists’ engagement in activism, suggesting that formal scientific training affords researchers an ability to separate personal and professional values in scientific discourse. Findings could inform the development of educational materials that may aid less experienced scientists and the lay public in understanding retraction ethics.
... liberal) self-placement was positively associated with the perceived moral goodness of obedience to normative authorities in positions of power in society ("religious authority," "commanding officer," "police," and "the law") and associated in the opposite direction with the perceived moral goodness of obedience to political activists that challenge the status quo ("environmentalist," "civil rights activist," and "whistleblower"). Furthermore, decades of research have demonstrated that political conservatives are disproportionately inclined to exhibit prejudice and intolerance against minority groups (Badaan & Jost, 2020;Duckitt & Sibley, 2010), but some recent studies suggest that liberals may even be more inclined to stereotype and discriminate conservative job applicants than the other way around in the United States (Honeycutt & Freberg, 2017;Sinclair et al., 2023). Consistent with this, research on prejudice across diverse targets (Brandt & Crawford, 2020;Chambers et al., 2013) has found that conservatives disproportionately exhibit prejudice against many nonnormative groups, including homosexuals, transgender persons, drug users, poor people, illegal immigrants, and Blacks, while liberals exhibit disproportionate prejudice particularly against value-based targets, including conservatives, Christian fundamentalists, big business, anti-abortionists, and the Tea Party. ...
A series of new conceptualizations of left‐wing authoritarianism have recently been proposed to counterbalance the traditional focus on right‐wing authoritarianism in political psychology. This article scrutinizes conceptual confusions in the literature on authoritarianism that have been exacerbated by these new conceptualizations, including a pseudo‐debate about the existence of left‐wing authoritarianism; a conflation of the psychological phenomenon of authoritarianism with the more general category of all antidemocratic predispositions; and a number of logical, conceptual, and statistical fallacies that obscure psychological differences between antidemocratic predispositions on the right and the left. It proposes that antidemocratic predispositions on the right typically involve an authoritarian adherence to established norms along with violence and repression directed at perceived threats to, or deviations from, these norms, whereas those that occur on the left more commonly involve a motivation to overthrow the established authority along with violence and repression directed at perceived threats to superordinate ideological values. It concludes with a call for a broadened and reinvigorated program of research that studies the complexity and diversity of antidemocratic predispositions on the left, the right, and beyond, and their causal impact on antidemocratic attitudes and actions, drawing on insights from multiple traditions and fields of research.
... For example, academics of such ideology report greater skepticism to arguments of "nature" shaping sex differences (Geher & Gambacorta 2010). Given the especially large number of left-leaning individuals in academia (ranging between 71-85%), retraction for certain information hazards could become more defensible (Honeycutt & Freberg 2017;Honeycutt & Jussim 2022;Inbar & Lammers 2012). Potential hazards that could be more defensibly retracted among this population could include those that violate principles of harm reduction. ...
A prevailing lay understanding of retraction in the scientific literature is to correct for misconduct and honest errors. Nonetheless, though historically rare, retractions to limit the spread of results deemed socially harmful (i.e., information hazards), have gained increasing traction and become increasingly common. This study sought primarily to determine the extent to which information hazard-based retraction is supported in the scientific community and as a secondary goal whether individual difference variables moderate receptivity. We tasked a diverse sample of researchers across various disciplines who use social media to evaluate scenarios in which a paper was retracted for misconduct, honest errors, and information hazards. Overall, support for retraction on the basis of information hazards was low, suggesting that researchers overwhelmingly support academic freedom as a concept. Nonetheless, left-leaning ideologies predicted slightly greater defensibility of the practice among individuals early in their careers. We provide training suggestions to mitigate reactance toward controversial scientific findings.
... From 9 to 25% of academics and 43% of PhD students supported dismissal campaigns for scholars who report controversial findings, suggesting that dismissal campaigns may increase as current PhDs replace existing faculty. Many academics report willingness to discriminate against conservatives in hiring, promotions, grants, and publications, with the result that right-leaning academics selfcensor more than left-leaning ones (40,75,99,103). ...
Science is among humanity’s greatest achievements, yet scientific censorship is rarely studied empirically. We explore the social, psychological, and institutional causes and consequences of scientific censorship (defined as actions aimed at obstructing particular scientific ideas from reaching an audience for reasons other than low scientific quality). Popular narratives suggest that scientific censorship is driven by authoritarian officials with dark motives, such as dogmatism and intolerance. Our analysis suggests that scientific censorship is often driven by scientists, who are primarily motivated by self-protection, benevolence toward peer scholars, and prosocial concerns for the well-being of human social groups. This perspective helps explain both recent findings on scientific censorship and recent changes to scientific institutions, such as the use of harm-based criteria to evaluate research. We discuss unknowns surrounding the consequences of censorship and provide recommendations for improving transparency and accountability in scientific decision-making to enable the exploration of these unknowns. The benefits of censorship may sometimes outweigh costs. However, until costs and benefits are examined empirically, scholars on opposing sides of ongoing debates are left to quarrel based on competing values, assumptions, and intuitions.
