Does Activism in Social Science Explain Conservatives’
Distrust of Scientists?
Michael A. Woodley of Menie
#Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017
Abstract Data from the General Social Survey suggest that conservatives have be-
come less trustful of scientists since the 1970s. Gauchat argues that this is because
conservatives increasingly see scientific findings as threatening to their worldview.
However, the General Social Survey data concern trust in scientists,notinscience.We
suggest that conservatives’diminishing trust in scientists reflects the fact that scientists
in certain fields, particularly social science, have increasingly adopted a liberal-activist
stance, seeking to influence public policy in a liberal direction.
Keywords Public understanding of science .Politics and science .Trust in science .
Conservatism .Political polarization
Conservatives’Distrust of Science?
Gauchat (2012) reports that confidence in science among American conservatives has
been falling steadily for four decades. In 1974, General Social Survey (GSS) respon-
dents who identified as conservative had the highest rates of trust in science of the three
major political demographics—49%, compared with 48% for liberals and 45% for
moderates. Moderates’trust in science dropped precipitously in the late 1970s and early
1980s, and remained fairly stable thereafter. Liberals’trust in science remained stable
throughout the whole period. Conservatives’trust, however, steadily decreased. By
Balliol College, Oxford OX1 3BJ, UK
Nuffield College, Oxford, UK
Center Leo Apostel for Interdisciplinary Studies, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
2010, conservatives had the lowest rates of trust in science—38%, compared with 40%
for moderates and 50% for liberals.
What accounts for conservatives’apparent skepticism toward science? There are
two main schools of thought (Nisbet et al. 2015). The first says that conservatives are
inherently more skeptical of scientific explanation. This may be because conservative
ideology seeks to preserve traditional social structures and institutions, and B[t]he
dynamism of science,^with Bits constant onslaught on old orthodoxies, its rapid
generation of new technological possibilities[,] presents an obvious challenge to more
static worldviews^(Mooney 2005:5; partially quoted in Gauchat 2012:170). Addition-
ally, the dogmatism, need for closure, and fear of uncertainty that characterize conser-
vatives (Jost et al. 2003;Kruglanski2004; Nam et al. 2013) may prevent them from
revising their prior beliefs in response to new information, including scientific discov-
eries (see Nisbet et al. 2015).
Those who attribute to conservatives a greater inherent psychological disposition to
reject science cite empirical findings suggesting that conservatives are less tolerant of
ideologically threatening information. For example, supporters of Republican presi-
dents are less likely to agree to write an essay arguing in favor of Democratic presidents
than vice versa (Nam et al. 2013). Nam et al. interpret this as reflecting conservatives’
greater drive to avoid dissonance-arousing situations. According to Nam et al., this
psychological trait helps explain why (in their view) Bconservatives are...more likely to
hold false beliefs concerning a number of public policy issues...in comparison with
liberals.^Also, conservatives are slightly more likely than liberals to adjust their factual
beliefs to align with their moral views (Liu and Ditto 2012): Those who oppose stem
cell research and encouraging teenagers to use condoms tend to deny that stem cell
research will lead to medical benefits and that condoms are effective. Liberals do not
show the same level of bias when asked about the deterrent power of capital punish-
ment and the effectiveness of forceful interrogation of terrorist suspects. Those high in
right-wing authoritarianism (RWA)—which is correlated, though not identical, with
conservatism—manifest double standards when reasoning about political issues
The second school of thought says that conservatives are not inherently more biased
or inclined to reject science than liberals. Rather, conservatives and liberals are equally
prone to engage in motivated reasoning to discount worldview-threatening scientific
evidence (Brandt et al. 2014;Carletal.2016; Chambers et al. 2015;Crawford2012;
Crawford et al. 2013;Crawfordetal.2015;Grahametal.2012;Kahan2013). It just so
happens that the most salient scientific controversies in recent times—evolution,
climate change, etc.—center on theories that threaten the worldview of conservatives
rather than liberals (see Nisbet et al. 2015).
Indeed, recent work in political psychology (cited above) suggests that liberals and
conservatives are equally prone to engage in biased reasoning. Both liberals and
conservatives employ double standards when reasoning about policy issues, but only
when they accept the premise upon which a political dilemma is based (Crawford
2012). For example, conservatives (defined by Crawford as those high on RWA) may
support mandating Christian prayer in public schools, though they object to laws
mandating Islamic prayer even in Islamic countries. Liberals reject the premise that
mandatory school prayer is acceptable at all. So liberals reject school prayer across the
board, and do not employ a double standard in this case (Crawford 2012). However,
when Christian subjects are asked whether they support creating space in public
schools for Bvoluntary prayer,^both conservatives and liberals reveal a double stan-
dard. As before, conservatives are more likely to support creating a space in schools for
Christian prayer than for Islamic prayer. Liberals, since they accept the legitimacy of
voluntary prayer, are more likely to support a space for voluntary Islamic prayer
(Crawford 2012). Previous studies of the relationship between political orientation
and bias tended to ask subjects to reason about dilemmas whose premises were not
acceptable to liberals (e.g., mandatory school prayer). That is why these studies falsely
suggested that conservatives but not liberals are biased.
If conservatives do not tend to be more biased than liberals, why have they become
increasingly less trustful of science, as Gauchat (2012) reports? We argue that there has
been a reduction in trust in scientists—not in science itself—among educated conser-
vatives, and that this is due partly to the increasing liberal-activist stance among certain
elements of the scientific establishment in recent years.
Limitations of Gauchat (2012): Trust in Science Versus Trust
in the Scientific Community
How did Gauchat (2012) measure Btrust in science^? GSS interviewers preface ques-
tions concerning trust of social institutions with the following:
I am going to name some institutions in this country. As far as the people running
these institutions are concerned, would you say you have a great deal of confi-
dence, only some confidence, or hardly any confidence at all in them? (quoted in
Respondents are then asked about Bthe Scientific Community.^Gauchat counts only
the answer Ba great deal^as indicating trust in science (172).
In an endnote, Gauchat acknowledges that he uses the term Bscience^to
refer to a group of people, the organizations they belong to, and the professional
boundary that central institutions in society agree is a source of credible
expertise....Terms like scientific establishment or organized science might be
more appropriate, but these ideas are often simply referred to as Bscience.^
(184n2; see also 182–83)
However, the people and institutions responsible for conducting science are not equiv-
alent to science, regardless of how the word may sometimes be used. (a) Trust in scientific
authorities is separate from (b) belief that the scientific method (whatever it is) is the most
reliable way to gain knowledge of the world. It is important to note that neither (a) nor (b)
implies the other. A person might not believe that the scientific method is the best way to
learn about the world, but support scientific authorities on the basis that they advocate
policies with which the person happens to agree. Conversely, someone might strongly
believe in the scientific method, but doubt that mainstream scientific authorities are living up
to its requirements. This means that falling conservative trust in Bthe scientific community^
may not reflect antipathy toward the scientific method or resistance to ideology-threatening
scientific findings. Instead, it may betoken conservative skepticism of mainstream scientists
whom they perceive to be pushing a liberal agenda.
Prima facie evidence in favor of this last possibility is that conservatives’loss of trust
in the scientific community has been driven largely by educated conservatives. Gauchat
(2012) finds that conservatives with high school, bachelor’s, and graduate degrees all
became less trustful of science from 1974 to 2010, but those with bachelor’sdegrees
experienced a greater decline in trust than those with only high school degrees. He
offers the following interpretation of these findings: B[T]hey imply that conservative
discontent with science was not attributable to the uneducated but to rising distrust
among educated conservatives....[E]ducated conservatives appear to be more culturally
engaged with the ideology and...more politically sophisticated^(180). An alternative—
or complimentary—hypothesis, as noted, is that the scientific establishment has taken
an increasingly liberal-activist stance over the last four decades.
The Politicization of Science: Another Reason Why Conservatives Distrust
Following Mooney (2005), Gauchat argues that conservatives have become less trustful
of science because they are threatened by recent scientific discoveries. We offer an
alternative explanation for the GSS data: Educated conservatives’increasing skepticism
of scientific institutions is partly a reaction to the politicization—namely, the liberali-
zation—of these institutions.
We begin by noting that conservatives are not uniformly more distrusting of all types
of scientists. McCright et al. (2013) do find that self-identified conservatives report less
general trust in scientists, measured by subjects’trust in scientists to BCreate knowledge
that is unbiased and accurate,^BCreate knowledge that is useful,^BAdvise government
officials on policy,^and BInform the public on important issues.^However, this is
driven by conservatives’distrust of Bimpact scientists^who are concerned with
Bunderstanding human impacts on the environment and human health^(2). Conserva-
tives actually report greater trust than liberals in Bproduction scientists,^whose work
focuses on invention and innovation for the sake of economic production. So, for
example, liberals have greater trust in climatologists who study climate change and
pollution, whereas conservatives have greater trust in food and materials scientists. This
raises the possibility that contemporary conservatives are not opposed to, or skeptical
of, science per se. Rather, they lack trust in impact scientists whom they see as seeking
to influence policy in a liberal direction.
We want to decide between two competing hypotheses. The first is Gauchat’s:
Conservatives have become less trustful of science because recent scientific discoveries
threaten their worldview and undermine the justification for conservative policies. The
second is our alternative hypothesis: In recent decades, impact scientists and scientific
institutions have distorted or misrepresented science in order to advance liberal political
causes. Increasing conservative skepticism of certain kinds of scientists and institutions
(not of science per se) is a reaction to that change within the scientific community.
What sort of evidence is relevant to deciding between these two hypotheses? We
need to determine whether scientists (qua scientists) have increasingly adopted a
liberal-activist stance in recent years. The mere proportion of liberals among scientists
is irrelevant to this question. Both hypotheses under consideration predict that scientists
have become more liberal—Gauchat’s, because scientists do not want to be associated
with an anti-science political philosophy; ours, because certain sectors of the scientific
community have become more hostile toward conservatives. Even if it is the case that
scientists are increasingly donating to liberal causes, voting for the Democratic Party, or
self-identifying as liberals, this does not support our contention that scientists distort
science for the sake of liberal political aims.
In this article, we provide examples of prominent, mainstream scientists and scien-
tific institutions putting a spin on scientific findings to influence policy, or the public
perception of science, in order to advance liberal causes. To reiterate, we aim to show
not just that scientists are liberal, but that they use their authority as scientists, and the
prestige of scientific institutions, to influence social policy in a liberal direction.In
political debates, contemporary scientists often serve as liberal activists. We also
provide evidence that, in impact sciences, researchers face more hurdles when pub-
lishing results that conflict with liberal, rather than conservative, orthodoxies.
Diversity Is a Strength (Even when It’sNot)
In 2007, former president of the American Political Science Association Robert Putnam
inhabitants of [racially] diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective
life, to distrust their neighbours, regardless of the colour of their skin, to withdraw
even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders,
to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often,
to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that
they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the
television. (Putnam 2007:150–51)
He explained in an interview with the Financial Times:
The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we
don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’ttrust
people who do look like us. [In racially diverse communities, people] don’ttrust
the local mayor, they don’t trust the local paper, they don’t trust other people and
they don’t trust institutions. The only thing there’s more of is protest marches and
TV watching. (quoted in Lloyd 2006)
Putnam said that Bhe had delayed publishing his research until he could develop
proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity.^In his words, it Bwould
have been irresponsible to publish without that^(Lloyd 2006). So he refrained from
publishing empirical findings that contradicted a key tenet of contemporary liberalism
(Bdiversity is a strength^) until he could think up a way to make it politically palatable
to liberals. (Note the disturbing implication—if he never had found a way to put a
liberal spin on his findings, then it never would have been responsible to publish them.)
In his 2007 article, Putnam speculates that B[i]n the long run immigration and diversity
are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits^
(137). He of course has his reasons for making this prediction. But it must be admitted
that predictions about future social trends are notoriously less certain than verifiable
empirical findings about the present. Putnam chose to be optimistic about the future of
diversity, assuming that all ethnic groups will learn to identify with each by creating a
Bbroader sense of ‘we’^(139) just as white Americans of different European back-
grounds expanded their parochial identities to encompass all Whites.
In an amicus curiae brief for Fisher v. University of Texas—acaseconcerningthe
constitutionality of race-conscious admissions designed to promote diversity—
Thernstrom et al. (2013) wrote that B[w]hat Putnam found certainly contradicted the
more naive forms of contact theory^(i.e., the theory that the negative consequences of
racial diversity are ameliorated by interracial contact). In response, Putnam submitted
an amicus brief in which he accused Thernstrom et al. of Bselectively cit[ing]^him
because they did not mention his other findings, namely: B[W]hile increased diversity
may present challenges in the short to medium term, greater diversity can lead to
significant benefits to society in the medium to long term^(Putnam 2013). But these
other claims—that despite challenges, diversity will eventually bring significant bene-
fits—simply represent the liberal position on diversity. Note that Thernstrom et al. did
not claim that Putnam’s findings ruled out the possibility that diversity will bring
benefits, just that they contradict Bthe more naive forms of contact theory.^But
Putnam—and, as we will see, other social scientists, too—presented his liberal opinion
to the court as simply a scientific finding.
Several professional organizations including the American Anthropological Associ-
ation, the American Political Science Association, and the American Sociological
Association also submitted an amicus brief for the case. The brief asserts: BBuilding
on a well-established body of literature, [social scientific] research underscores the
University’s compelling interest in diversity....Among [the] benefits [is]...greater civic
engagement...^(American Educational Research Association et al. 2013). It addresses
Putnam’s(2007) study once—in a footnote—and faults Thernstrom et al. for
Bignor[ing] methodological limits to the study (such as omitting variables dealing with
intergroup contact and with racial segregation), and fail[ing] to mention that none of the
data are drawn from higher education settings.^As noted, the only conclusion
Thernstrom et al. drew from Putnam (2007) was that it contradicts Bthe more naive
forms of contact theory^—a supremely cautious interpretation of the data.
Our point is not that diversity is undesirable, or that Putnam’spessimistic findings are
irrefragable (see Abascal and Baldassarri 2015) and that they necessarily apply to the
university environment. Our point is that prominent scientists and scientific organizations
are not committed to presenting research in a political neutral way, and they will distort it in
order to advance liberal causes. One of the most prominent social scientists in the world
openly admitted that he refrained from publishing empirical data that threatened an
important liberal value—Bdiversity is a strength^—until he could think up a way to
neutralize that implication. Ultimately, he concluded that, while all the observable data
suggest that diversity causes social problems, in the future—the future which, of course, has
not been observed—diversity will lead to great benefits. Now if anyone cites his study to
support the claim that diversity is associated with problems, but fails to mention the alleged
future benefits, he accuses them of Bselectively cit[ing]^his Bfindings.^And although his
study met the highest standards of social scientific research, the ASA and other
scientific organizations, for dubious reasons, proclaimed it irrelevant to a debate about the
benefits of diversity.
Thousands of Studies Support the Liberal Theory of Aggression?
A tenet of liberalism is that violence is a learned behavior. A favorite culprit is the
media—people learn to be violent from seeing violence on television and in movies and
playing violent video games.
In 2000, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) testified to Congress that
Bmore than 3500^studies have investigated the link between exposure to media
violence and actual violent behavior. BAll but 18 have shown a positive correlation.^
To make the point dramatically, it asserted that the strength of the correlation is Blarger
than that of condom non-use and sexually transmitted HIV, lead exposure and lower
I.Q., passive tobacco smoke and lung cancer or calcium intake and bone mass,
relationships which pediatricians accept as fact...^(American Academy of Pediatrics
Also in 2000, six scientific and medical organizations—the AAP, the American
Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychological Association
(APA), the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physi-
cians, and the American Psychiatric Association—presented a joint statement to
Congress on the link between exposure to media violence and aggression in children.
According to the statement, Bwell over 1000 studies^have led the Bpublic health
community [to conclude] that viewing entertainment violence can lead to increases in
aggressive attitudes, values and behavior, particularly in children. Its effects are
measurable and long-lasting^(American Academy of Pediatrics et al. 2000).
It seems fair to say that these major scientific organizations have put their credibility
on the line over this issue. The link is as great as that between lead exposure and lower
IQ, or second-hand smoke and cancer? Over 1000—maybe even 3500—studies
support a single conclusion, which is not contradicted by a single study worth men-
tioning? Well, it turns out that these organizations never conducted reviews of the
literature about which they were testifying. A bit of investigation would have revealed
an important fact: There were not 1000 studies—let alone more than 3500—investigat-
ing the relationship between exposure to media violence and aggression. It is simply
false. In an extensive review of the literature, Freedman (2002) found around 200
studies that address the link (see Freedman 2002:13). Of these studies, more than half
report findings that are inconsistent with there being a causal link. Of those whose
findings are not inconsistent, there are other explanations for the results besides the
causal hypothesis. In many cases, researchers interpreted a transient increase in general
arousal from watching exciting (violent) films as elevated Baggression.^The ways in
which aggression is measured (e.g., hitting a Bobo doll, asking a child Bwhether he
would pop a balloon if one were present^) are often questionable for a number of
Media researcher John Murray takes credit for Binadvertently^creating the 1000+
studies myth when, some years earlier, while working on the National Institute of
Mental Health’s review of this issue, he estimated that around B2,500 publications of all
kinds [were] relevant to the review^(Freedman 2002:24). He was referring to all
publications, including magazine articles, theoretical papers, and papers on topics that
were only tangentially related to the subject. This offhand statement then morphed in a
bizarre claim that thousands of studies implicate television watching in aggressive
behavior, which became the cornerstone of several scientific organizations’testimony
Freedman does not believe that exposure to media violence causes aggression, and
our point is not that he is necessarily correct. Our point is that several of the most
important scientific organizations in the United States presented testimony to Con-
gress—testimony that was intended to influence policy—that misrepresented science in
a way that favors a liberal approach to dealing with violence.
Freedman (2002:16) suggests some possible reasons why the APA testified that
there was a scientific consensus on this issue. Maybe it Bwas worried about its public
image^—or wanted to appease members of Congress who blame television violence
for crime and who also control funding for science. Another possibility, which Freed-
man does not consider, is political. Namely, it is a tenet of liberalism—arguably it is the
essence of liberalism—that violence and bad behavior are caused by bad social
conditioning. Sowell (1987) argues that belief or nonbelief in the perfectibility of
people is what distinguishes liberals and conservatives, respectively. If aggression is
not the result of social influences, if it appears without social prompting, this threatens a
tenet of liberalism.
Tolerance of Liberal Activism in Social Science
The ASA defines Bsociology^as Bthe study of society^including people’s
social lives, social aggregations, and so on (Smith 2014:5–6). There is nothing
in the definition about an ultimate purpose of the discipline. Smith (2014),
however, argues that American sociology is guided by a Bsacred project^—a
political end for which sociological investigation is undertaken and findings
interpreted and disseminated. The sacred project involves reorganizing society
to fight oppression, inequality, poverty, hierarchy, and the like. Its ideological
orientation arose out of the Social Gospel, civil rights, feminism, Marxism, and
other progressive movements. Smith reviews extensive evidence that sociology
books published by major academic presses, articles in top journals, events
sponsored by the ASA, and the three most popular introductory textbooks in
the field overwhelmingly promote the sacred project.
As candidate for President-Elect of the American Sociological Association in 2002,
Michael Burawoy wrote a personal statement to describe himself to voting members.
He declared himself an advocate of Bpublic sociology,^which is Ba sociology that
transcends the academy^to effect (liberal) social change (see Martin 2016). He was
ultimately elected. Not only is public sociology tolerated by sociologists, but someone
Murray himself strongly supports a causal link. In a 1-star review on Amazon.com, he calls Freedman’s book
Ba biased attack on the science of psychology, the profession of communications, and the common sense of
any educated reader.^In response to a request for sources that refute Freedman (2002), Murray sent us an
unpublished paper that did not cite any of Freedman’s work. In response to a follow-up request, he referred us
to a special issue of the Hofstra Law Review (Summer 1994), which was published before the book in
who specifically plays up his commitment to this form of liberal activism was elected
by sociologists to represent their field. Clearly, no conservative would ever have been
nominated for the position, let alone elected.
Variance in mathematics ability appears to be larger for males than females (Benbow
et al. 2000; Wai et al. 2010). When president of Harvard Larry Summers mentioned this
fact in connection with the underrepresentation of women in quantitative fields, the
anthropologist J. Lorand Matory and the sociologist Theda Skocpol introduced motions
to censor him, which were approved by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (Marra and
Polsky 2005). He was ultimately forced to resign. Many prominent psychologists had
previously endorsed the reality of biologically based gender differences in mathemat-
ical ability, and so presumably agreed with Summers’s remarks. Diane Halpern, for
example, who was president of the APA in 2004, reviews a great deal of evidence
showing that males tend to score higher on tests of mathematical aptitude than females,
especially at the high end (though she does not come to a definitive conclusion about
the cause of the differences) (Halpern 2000). In 2012, she commented sympathetically
on Summers’s remarks (Halpern 2012). Nevertheless, Summers received virtually no
meaningful support from the institutions of science. This case illustrated that main-
stream scientific institutions are unwilling to stand up for dispassionate reporting of
scientific findings in the face of liberal activist pressure.
The idea that all racial groups have identical distributions of innate intelligence is a
central tenet of contemporary liberalism. Many prominent social scientists openly
express the view that it is morally wrong to conduct scientific investigations that
threaten to uncover innate racial differences (see Cofnas 2016; Gottfredson 2005;
Sesardic 2005). Gardner (2001:8), for example, writes that he does Bnot condone
investigations of racial differences in intelligence, because [he] think[s] that the results
of these studies are likely to be incendiary^(note the implication that he thinks
differences are likely to exist) (quoted in Cofnas 2016:485). Sternberg (2005:300)
writes that good science is characterized by Btaste in the selection of problems to
solve,^and it is in bad taste to study the genetic basis of group differences in
intelligence. Those who argue in favor of studying group differences (including both
liberal and conservative scientists) never argue the opposite—that we should avoid
research that threatens to undermine the theory of genetically based differences.Rather,
they just argue that Bthe scientific truth must be pursued^(Ceci and Williams 2009)and
Brational discussion of the offensive is okay^(Flynn 2007).
How Hard Is It for Conservative Social Scientists to Publish?
Social and personality psychologists are paradigm impact scientists. Theyoften work on
politically relevant issues like discrimination, racism, and sexism, and make policy
recommendations—virtually always supporting the liberal perspective (Redding
2001:206–8, Table 1; 2012)—on the basis of their research. The APA sometimes makes
official statements on policy issues that are questions of values rather than fact, always
supporting the liberal position (Redding 2001, Table 1).
The ratio of liberals to conservatives among psychologists has increased significantly
over the past few decades (Redding 2012:513). Today, only 6% identify as Bconservative
overall.^On social issues, only 3.9% identify as conservative, and 5.5% as
moderate (Inbar and Lammers 2012). As noted earlier, the mere fact that liberals
outnumber conservatives in a field is no proof of bias (though it does create a
significant risk of confirmation bias; Duarte et al. 2015). Do psychologists conduct
science in a politically neutral way in spite of their personal politics? In their own
In a survey of social and personality psychologists, Inbar and Lammers
(2012) found that one-out-of-six would be Bsomewhat (or more)^disposed
not to invite a known political conservative to a symposium, and to reject
papers written from a conservative perspective. One-out-of-four would be dis-
posed to reject conservative grant applications, and one-out-of-three would
favor a liberal job candidate. This is remarkable given the stigma attached to
discriminating against people on the basis of their beliefs. One would have to
assume that willingness to discriminate will be underreported in a survey like
this (see Honeycutt and Freberg 2017). But let’s take the most conservative
estimate with regard to peer review for papers. Often, to get a paper published,
the journal editor plus three referees must accept it.
If one-out-of-six editors/
referees openly discriminates against conservative submissions, that means there
is a less than 50% chance—(5/6)
—that neither the editor nor any of the
referees will be open discriminators against conservative papers. Since one-
out-of-three psychologists say they would discriminate against conservative job
candidates, there is just a 20% chance that the paper will be handled only by
people who do not openly admit to discriminating against conservatives in at
least some contexts.
Honeycutt and Freberg (2017)surveyeduniversityfacultyin76disciplines
about their willingness to discriminate against conservatives or liberals. They
found that the vast majority of faculty members in all disciplines except
agriculture (a paradigm production science) identified as liberal. The same
proportion of conservatives and liberals expressed willingness to discriminate
against those with opposing political views. While conservatives may be equal-
ly inclined to discriminate, in Honeycutt and Freberg’swordstheyBclearly lack
the means and opportunity for execution,^at least in impact sciences like
psychology and sociology. Only 4% of social and personality psychologists in
Inbar and Lammers’s survey identified as conservative. Assuming that conser-
vatives are just as willing to discriminate as liberals, 1.33% (i.e., 4% × 1/3) of
social and personality psychologists are conservatives who openly acknowledge
that they would discriminate against liberals in some context. If a journal
submission goes through an editor and three referees, it has an almost 95%
chance of not being handled by a conservative who discriminates against
Recent examples of high-profile frauds in social science lend credence to the idea
that reviewers and journal editors apply much less scrutiny to papers reporting liberal-
Some journals use two rather than three referees, or will accept a paper if two-out-of-three write a favorable
report. Sometimes more than one editor is involved in assessing submissions. If we assume that only one
editor and two referees handle a submission, it does not substantially change the estimated probability of
facing a discriminator.
friendly results. Over the course of more than a decade, Diederik Stapel published
dozens of sensational papers on such topics as how easily Whites or men can be
prompted to discriminate against Blacks or women (Wright and DeLisi 2016:4). We
now know that these papers were fraudulent. As to how he was able to get away with
his fraud for such a long time, Stapel explained that he was giving social scientists what
they were Bwaiting for^given the state of the literature (Bhattacharjee 2013). It is
telling that he believed he would get away with—and for a long time he did get away
with—false liberal-friendly findings.
A couple years ago, LaCour and Green (2014) published their now-retracted paper,
BWhen Contact Changes Minds: An Experiment on Transmission of Support for Gay
Equality,^in Science. The first sentence of the paper read: BForemost among theories of
prejudice reduction is the contact hypothesis, which contends that outgroup hostility
diminishes when people from different grounds interact with one another^—thus
characterizing anyone who opposes same-sex marriage (tendentiously called Bgay
equality^)ashavingBprejudice^and Bhostility^to homosexuals. The study claimed
that Ba 20-minute conversation with a gay canvasser^significantly increased accep-
tance of same-sex marriage 9 months later. This finding would imply that opponents of
same-sex marriage are on such weak intellectual footing that the most trivial exposure
to an opposing view is enough to permanently overturn their whole outlook. As we
now know, no study was ever conducted at all, and the fraud was found out due to the
tenacious efforts of two graduate students, David Broockman and Joshua Kalla. But the
editors and referees at Science, and the vast majority of the social scientists who
welcomed LaCour and Green’s paper, accepted the unflattering claims about conser-
vatives at face value, seeing no need to probe more deeply.
Gauchat claimed that conservatives had less trust in Bscience^than liberals. We
observed that he found only that they have less trust in scientists,notscience, and that
there is independent evidence that conservative distrust is directed toward what
McCright et al. (2013) call Bimpact scientists^(e.g., social scientists) rather than
Bproduction scientists.^We provided evidence that leading social scientists and social
science organizations misrepresent research in order to influence public policy in a
liberal direction, tolerate censorship of work that challenges liberal beliefs, uncritically
accept dubious scientific findings that paint conservatives in an unflattering light, and
practice a variety of forms of discrimination against conservative scholars. Conserva-
tives’recognition of this reality could explain why only 38% of conservatives in 2010,
compared with 50% of liberals, said that they had Bgreat deal of confidence^in Bthe
scientific community^(Gauchat 2012).
Losing the trust of conservatives may not be the only bad consequence of liberal
activism in social science. Science itself is harmed. As Weber (2009:146) warned,
Bwhenever the man of science introduces his personal value judgement, a full under-
standing of the facts ceases.^Today, social science is facing a Breplication crisis^(Open
Science Collaboration 2015): Many findings that were thought to be firmly established
are turning out not to be replicable when tested more carefully. It is noteworthy that a
significant number of the effects that are falling victim to the replication crisis either
supported liberalism or were somehow unflattering to conservatives. BStereotype threat^
is perhaps the most striking example. Since stereotype threat was proposed to explain
gaps in the test scores of Blacks and Whites more than two decades ago (Steele and
Aronson 1995), it has become one of the primary liberal explanations for group differ-
ences in performance and has spawned many thousands of follow-up studies. Yet it may
turn out that it was all a mistake—a consequence of publication bias and questionable
research methods (Ganley et al. 2013; Jussim 2015). Other studies that could not be
replicated, while not being explicitly anti-conservative, subtly support liberal ideas or cast
conservatives in a bad light. For example, studies that could not be replicated include one
where people Bincreased their endorsement of a current social systemafter being exposed
to money^and another where Americans became more conservative after seeing a U.S.
flag (Yong 2013). The former makes money seem to be bad thing, in line with liberal
skepticism of capitalism. The latter suggests that conservatism is a primal reaction to
tribal symbols. Virtually none of the non-replicable effects were at all favorable to
conservatism. This suggests that findings that might favor conservatism are scrutinized
much more carefully than those thatfavor liberalism—if they are not censored or rejected
for explicitly moral reasons (e.g., Gardner 2001;Sternberg2005).
In the past few years, a number of social scientists, led by Jonathan Haidt, have
called upon social scientists to diversify the field and make a conscious effort to root
out liberal bias (Duarte et al. 2015). We conclude with a prediction: If social scientists
begin counteracting liberal activism, the trend of lowering conservative trust in scien-
tists will reverse.
Acknowledgements Thanks to Lawrence Nichols and Neven Sesardićfor helpful comments on earlier
drafts of this paper.
Abascal, M., & Baldassarri, D. (2015). Love thy neighbor? Ethnoracial diversity and trust reexamined.
American Journal of Sociology, 121(3), 722–782.
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
American Academy of Pediatrics. (2000). Testimony of the American Academy of Pediatrics on media
violence before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee. Retrieved from http://ibrarian.
pdf?paperid=4330072. Accessed 1 March 2017.
American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, American
Psychological Association, American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians,
& American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Joint statement on the impact of entertainment violence on
children. Congressional Public Health Summit. Retrieved from http://public.psych.iastate.
edu/caa/VGVpolicyDocs/00AAP%20-%20Joint%20Statement.pdf . Accessed 1 March 2017.
American Educational Research Association et al. (2013). Brief of the American Educational Research
Association et al. as amici curiae in support of respondents. No. 11-345. Abigail Noel Fisher v.
University of Texas at Austin et al. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ebb8/97d10d24
Benbow, C. P., Lubinski, D., Shea, D. L., & Eftekhari-Sanjani, H. (2000). Sex differences in mathematical
reasoning ability at age 13: Their status 20 years later. Psychological Science, 11(6), 474–480.
Bhattacharjee, Y. (2013, April 28). The mind of a con man. The New York Times Magazine,p.MM44.
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), 27–34.
Carl, N., Cofnas, N., & Woodley of Menie, M. A. (2016). Scientific literacy, optimism about science and
conservatism. Personality and Individual Differences, 94,299–302.
Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2009). Should scientists study race and IQ? YES: The scientific truth must be
pursued. Nature, 457(7231), 788–789.
Chambers, J. R., Swan, L. K., & Heesacker, M. (2015). Perceptions of U.S. social mobility are divided (and
distorted) along ideological lines. Psychological Science, 26(4), 413–423.
Cofnas, N. (2016). Science is not always Bself-correcting^: Fact–value conflation and the study of intelligence.
Foundations of Science, 21(3), 477–492.
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), 138–151.
Crawford, J. T., Jussim, L., Cain, T. R., & Cohen, F. (2013). Right-wing authoritarianism and social
dominance orientation differentially predict biased evaluations of media reports. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 43(1), 163–174.
Crawford, J. T., Kay, S. A., & Duke, K. E. (2015). Speaking out of both sides of their mouths: Biased political
judgments within (and between) individuals. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(4), 422–
Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). Political diversity will
improve social psychological science. Behavioral an d Brain Sciences, 38,1–13.
Flynn, J. R. (2007). Rational discussion of the offensive is okay. Cato unbound. Retrieved from http://www.
cato-unbound.org/2007/11/21/james-r-flynn/rational-discussion-offensive-okay. Accessed 1 March 2017.
Freedman, J. L. (2002). Media violence and its effect on aggression: Assessing the scientific evidence.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Ganley, C. M., Mingle, L. A., Ryan, A. M., Ryan, K., Vasilyeva, M., & Perry, M. (2013). An examination of
stereotype threat effect on girls’mathematics performance. Developmental Psychology, 49(10), 1886–
Gardner, H. (2001). The ethical responsibilities of professionals. The good project: Ideas and tools for a good
life. Retrieved from http://thegoodproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/GoodWork2.pdf.Accessed1
Gauchat, G. (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), 167–187.
Gottfredson, L. S. (2005). What if the hereditarian hypothesis is true? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., & Haidt, J. (2012). The moral stereotypes of liberals and conservatives: exagger-
ation of differences across the political spectrum. PloS ONE, 7(12), e50092.
Halpern, D. F. (2000). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (3rd ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Halpern, D. F. (2012). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (4th ed.). New York: Psychology Press.
Honeycutt, N., & Freberg, L. (2017). The liberal and conservative experience across academic disciplines: An
extension of Inbar and Lammers. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(2), 115–123.
Inbar, Y., & Lammers, J. (2012). Political diversity in social and personality psychology. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 7(5), 496–503.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social
cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375.
Jussim, L. (2015). Is stereotype threat overcooked, overstated, and oversold? Heterodox Academy. Retrieved
Accessed 1 March 2017.
Kahan, D. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision
making, 8(4), 407–424.
Kruglanski,A.W.(2004).The psychology of closed mindedness. New York: Psychology Press.
LaCour, M. J., & Green, D. P. (2014). When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of
support for gay equality. Science, 346(6215), 1366–1369.
Liu, B. S., & Ditto, P. H. (2012). What dilemma? Moral evaluation shapes factual belief. Social Psychological
and Personality Science, 4(3), 316–323.
Lloyd, J. (2006). Study paints bleak picture of ethnic diversity. Financial Times. Retrieved from http://www.ft.
com/intl/cms/s/0/c4ac4a74-570f-11db-9110-0000779e2340.html#axzz3V0WTKbXG. Accessed 1 March
Marra, W. C., & Polsky, S. E. (2005). Lack of confidence: Faculty of Arts and Sciences votes, 218–185-18, to
express lack of confidence in Summers. The Harvard Crimson. Retrieved from http://www.thecrimson.
Martin, C. C. (2016). How ideology has hindered sociological insight. The American Sociologist, 47(1), 115–
McCright, A. M., Dentzman, K., Charters, M., & Dietz, T. (2013). The influence of political ideology on trust
in science. Environmental Research Letters, 8(4), 1–9.
Mooney, C. (2005). The Republican war on science. New York: Basic Books.
Nam,H.H.,Jost,J.T.,&VanBavel,J.J.(2013).BNot for all the tea in China!^Political ideology and the
avoidance of dissonance-arousing situations. PlOS ONE, 8(4), e59837.
Nisbet, E. C., Cooper, K. E., & Garrett, R. K. (2015). The partisan brain: How dissonant science messages lead
conservatives and liberals to (dis)trust science. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 658(1), 36–66.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science,
Putnam, R. D. (2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century. Scandinavian
Political Studies, 30(2), 137–174.
Putnam, R. D. (2013). Brief of Dr. Robert D. Putnam as amicus curiae in support of respondents. No. 11-345.
Abigail Noel Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin et al. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/08/11-345-respondent-amicus-Putman.pdf. Accessed 1 March 2017.
Redding, R. E. (2001). Sociopolitical diversity in psychology: The case for pluralism. American Psychologist,
Redding, R. E. (2012). Likes attract: The sociopolitical groupthink of (social) psychologists. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 7(5), 512–515.
Sesardic, N. (2005). Making sense of heritability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, C. (2014). The sacred project of American sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sowell, T. (1987). A conflict of visions: Ideological origins of political struggles. New York: William Morrow.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African
Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811.
Sternberg, R. J. (2005). There are no public-policy implications: A reply to Rushton and Jensen (2005).
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(2), 295–301.
Thernstrom, A., Thernstrom, S., Nagai, A. K., & Nieli, R. (2013). Brief of Abigail Thernstrom, Stephan
Thernstrom, Althea K. Nagai, and Russell Nieli as amici curiae in support of petitioners. No. 11-345.
Abigail Noel Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin et al. Retrieved from http://www.americanbar.
authcheckdam.pdf. Accessed 1 March 2017.
Wai, J., Cacchio, M., Putallaz, M., & Makel, M. C. (2010). Sex differences in the right tail of cognitive
abilities: A 30 year examination. Intelligence, 38(4), 412–423.
Weber, M. (2009). Science as a vocation. In H. H. Gerth & C. W. Mills (Eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in
sociology (pp. 129–156). New York: Routledge.
Wright, J. P., & DeLisi, M. (2016). Conservative criminology: A call to restore balance to the social sciences.
New York: Routledge.
Yong, E. (2013). Psychologists strike a blow for reproducibility. Nature. Retrieved from http://www.nature.
com/news/psychologists-strike-a-blow-for-reproducibility-1.14232#/b3. Accessed 1 March 2017.