No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
A Challenge to Orthodoxy in Psychology: Thomas Sowell and Social Justice
Abstract
Psychologists address social-justice problems in their research and applied work, and their scholarly efforts have been influenced by assumptions, constructs, and hypotheses from the political left. Recently, some psychologists have called for increased intellectual and political diversity in psychology, particularly as such diversity may lead to improved problem-solving. As an attempt to increase intellectual diversity in psychology, we review here the scholarship of Thomas Sowell. His work represents a rich source of hypotheses for psychologists’ future research. We focus on his views on the importance of freedom; the extent to which reforms can reduce freedom; the importance of free markets to human flourishing; the role of free markets in producing costs for discrimination; the way spontaneously ordered systems can contain knowledge that can be overlooked in reforms; and the importance of culture and cultural capital. We will also discuss Sowell’s more thoroughgoing economic analyses of problems and solutions and his analyses of contingencies operating on politicians and reformers, as well as his views on conflicts in fundamental visions about human nature and the pivotal role of improvements in minority education.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Disciplines in social and behavioral science have become increasingly committed to promoting social justice activism at the expense of viewpoint diversity. The present study documents the impact of this ideological project on the literature on racial disparities in criminal justice outcomes. Evidence from a recent high-profile retraction suggests that elite gatekeepers are willing to disregard ethical guidelines to censor an article embraced by conservatives. Evidence from additional case studies illustrates selective application of methodological standards based on the political implications of the findings. Serious errors are less likely to be treated as fatal if the contribution supports the activist agenda. By contrast, methodologically sound contributions are labeled as flawed if they challenge the dominant narrative. Although this manner of conduct is consistent with the evolved morality of human tribes, it violates the established norms of science. Observations from recent literature suggest that the integrity of social science research is compromised by our collective failure to value and protect contrarian perspectives. To remedy the situation, I propose that the open science movement – which has been successful at reducing questionable research practices – expand its scope from the craft of doing science to the realm of ideas, assumptions, and viewpoints. In short, I advocate for an “open minds” initiative for the improvement of social science research.
Behavioral finance, a field that combines the psychology of investors with economics and other social sciences, has gained huge popularity in the recent past due to the volatility and complexity of the stock market. Therefore, the aim of the study is to review the literature on behavioral finance and suggest areas for future research. To conduct a systematic literature review, research papers published between 1990 and 2021 were considered for the study. They were assessed on different parameters, such as time frame, journal, country, type of data, statistical tool, sampling techniques, behavioral biases, and their impact. Further, the proposed research model was established using Pareto analysis. Behavioral biases and their impact have been identified. Also, the gaps and the future research area have been proposed. Based on the identified biases, a model has been proposed depicting the relationship between behavioral biases and investment decisions. The study will help academicians and future researchers develop an understanding of behavioral finance in different dimensions of the work done in last two decades. Despite the copious literature available on the subject, the study is distinctive in its nature of conducting a literature review using a quality tool, "Pareto Analysis"
Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is often referred to as the “gold standard” treatment for mental health problems, given the large body of evidence supporting its efficacy. However, there are persistent questions about the generalizability of CBTs to culturally diverse populations and whether culturally sensitive approaches are warranted. In this review, we synthesize the literature on CBT for ethnic minorities, with an emphasis on randomized trials that address cultural sensitivity within the context of CBT. In general, we find that CBT is effective for ethnic minorities with diverse mental health problems, although nonsignificant trends suggest that CBT effects may be somewhat weaker for ethnic minorities compared to Whites. We find mixed support for the cultural adaptation of CBTs, but evidence for cultural sensitivity training of CBT clinicians is lacking, given a dearth of relevant trials. Based on the limited evidence thus far, we summarize three broad models for addressing cultural issues when providing CBT to diverse populations.
Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, Volume 19 is May 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
The American Psychological Association's (APA's) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (American Psychological Association, 2017b; hereinafter referred to as the Ethics Code) does not contain an enforceable standard regarding psychologists' role in either honoring or protecting the free speech of others, or ensuring that their own free speech is protected, including an important corollary of free speech, the protection of academic freedom. Illiberal acts illegitimately restrict civil liberties. We argue that the ethics of illiberal acts have not been adequately scrutinized in the Ethics Code. Psychologists require free speech to properly enact their roles as scientists as well as professionals who wish to advocate for their clients and students to enhance social justice. This article delineates criteria for what ought to be included in the Ethics Code, argues that ethical issues regarding the protection of free speech rights meet these criteria, and proposes language to be added to the Ethics Code. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
The fields of psychiatry and psychology have not sufficiently attended to the detrimental and pervasive effects of racism and racial discrimination on the mental health of historically and currently marginalized racial and ethnic minority populations. Over the past 3 decades, Williams and Cooper¹ and others have reported how structural racism and the experience of racial discrimination across the life span have deleterious consequences for physical and mental health. Importantly, these effects are distinct from those of poverty; racism is a fundamental cause of socioeconomic disparities, which in turn are principal drivers of health disparities. Considerably less attention has been paid to understanding the intergenerational ramifications of racism. Herein, we argue that just as exposure to adversity (a common consequence of racism) likely has intergenerational ramifications, the harms of racism can cross generations. Discussion of the consequences of racism intergenerationally is not free of challenging ethical implications, including the risk of increasing stigma by suggesting a type of biological determinism. Nevertheless, adopting an intergenerational approach in understanding the effects of racism can provide opportunities for prevention and intervention in psychiatry and psychology.
How might core values of psychology impede efforts to promote public psychology? We identify some of the ways the discipline’s aspirations for publicly engaged science are undermined by its norms, particularly when engaging with communities affected by historically entrenched, structural inequalities. We interrogate what makes for “good” psychology, including methodological and ethical norms that are used to maintain scientific integrity and police the boundaries of the discipline. We suggest that some of the discipline’s classical tenets and contemporary movements may produce structural, epistemic barriers to the production of science and practice that enhances the public good. Reflecting critically on the rise of implicit bias training in institutional diversity efforts as a case study, we consider how evidence-based efforts to intervene in social problems on behalf of the so-called public interest can inadvertently reproduce or exacerbate extant inequities. We turn to various social movements’ reclamation of what counts as “bad” to imagine a psychology that refuses to adjust itself to racism and structural inequality. We argue that much of what psychologists might characterize as “bad” should not be viewed as antithetical to the very best kind of psychological practice, particularly trailblazing work that reimagines the relationship between psychologists and society.
Trigger warnings notify people that content they are about to engage with may result in adverse emotional consequences. An experiment by Bellet, Jones, and McNally (2018) indicated that trigger warnings increased the extent to which trauma-naïve crowd-sourced participants see themselves and others as emotionally vulnerable to potential future traumas but did not have a significant main effect on anxiety responses to distressing literature passages. However, they did increase anxiety responses for participants who strongly believed that words can harm. In this article, we present a preregistered replication of this study in a college student sample, using Bayesian statistics to estimate the success of each effect's replication. We found strong evidence that none of the previously significant effects replicated. However, we found substantial evidence that trigger warnings' previously nonsignificant main effect of increasing anxiety responses to distressing content was genuine, albeit small. Interpretation of the findings, implications, and future directions are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
Objectives: The accusation of “acting White” (AW) represents a common cultural invalidation that youth of color encounter during adolescence. However, few studies have examined the broader implications of AW beyond academic achievement and it is unclear how multiple racial/ethnic groups internalize this invalidation during late adolescence. The present study addresses these gaps by examining the meaning ascribed to AW among a diverse sample of youth and evaluates whether interpretations of AW vary across demographic factors (race/ethnicity, gender). Method: We utilized a subset of participants (n = 282; 47% Black; 53% Latinx; 68% female) from the Minority College Cohort Study—a longitudinal investigation of minority college students. Qualitative responses were analyzed through content analysis. Results: The AW construct was defined by four themes: speech/behavior, style/social preferences, cultural ideologies, and academics/success. AW was described most frequently in terms of speech patterns, while achievement/success was the least commonly described theme. Several important demographic distinctions are also highlighted and discussed. Conclusion: Results indicate that AW invalidations are interpreted in a similar fashion across diverse populations. Our sample defined AW in a manner that critically examined rigid racial/ethnic norms and stereotypes within U.S. society. Findings indicate that cultural invalidations, such as AW, should be examined more broadly because they are relevant for diverse populations and may yield significant psychological implications for individuals targeted by these threats.
SCIENTIFIC In this paper, we argue that four interlocking barriers beset psychologists seeking to develop a proper science of social psychology. The first is the ideological orientation characteristic of most social psychologists—heavily skewed on the left side of the political spectrum. The second is the adoption of a view of human nature that social psychologists believe to be most conducive to that ideology—a blank slate that is corrupted solely by the ills of bad environments. The third is a rejection of theories and findings believed to contravene that view of human nature—those coming from evolutionary approaches to human behavior. The fourth is a suite of evolved psychological adaptations that actively impede an understanding of evolutionary psychology—adaptations for social persuasion rather than truth-seeking, adaptations for prestige maintenance, and adaptations for forming and maintaining in-group coalitions and for punishing competing coalitions. We examine these scientific impediments with empirical data based on a survey of 335 established social psychologists from the premier scientific society, The Society for Experimental Social Psychology (SESP). We conclude with the irony that our evolved psychology may interfere with the scientific understanding of our evolved psychology.
Psychology celebrates diversity, recognizes the value and legitimacy of diverse beliefs, and strives to be inclusive. Yet, the profession lacks sociopolitical diversity. Most psychologists are politically liberal, and conservatives are vastly underrepresented in the profession. Moreover, when sociopolitical views guide the research, advocacy, or professional practice of psychologists, those views most often are liberal. The lack of political diversity in psychology has unintended negative consequences for research, policy advocacy, clinical practice, the design and implementation of social interventions, and professional education. It excludes or marginalizes conservatives and conservative views, having detrimental effects on the profession in each of these areas. This article examines the importance of political diversity and the negative consequences of its absence and provides strategies for increasing sociopolitical pluralism in psychology.
Many important decisions are taken not by the person who will ultimately gain or lose from the outcome, but on their behalf, by somebody else. We examined economic decision-making about risk and time in situations in which deciders chose for others who also chose for them. We propose that this unique setting, which has not been studied before, elicits perception of reciprocity that prompts a unique bias in preferences. We found that decision-makers are less patient (more discounting), and more risk averse for losses than gains, with other peoples’ money, especially when their choices for others are more uncertain. Those results were derived by exploiting a computational modeling framework that has been shown to account for the underlying psychological and neural decision processes. We propose a novel theoretical mechanism—precautionary preferences under social uncertainty, which explains the findings. Implications for future research and alternative models are also discussed.
Although the effects of group-based victimhood on attitudes and emotions have been demonstrated in previous research, the ways it affects cognitive processes remain unclear. Four studies examined how a perpetual ingroup victimhood orientation (PIVO) affects cognitive biases. High levels of PIVO were associated with the categorization of more outgroups as hostile to the ingroup, and more rapid responses when using an enmity criterion (Study 1). PIVO was also associated with more attributions of malevolent intentions and fewer attributions of neutral intentions to outgroup members in ambiguous situations (Study 2a); when primed with reminders of historical group trauma, attribution of malevolent intentions increased among high- but not low- PIVO individuals (Study 2b). However, the effect extended to all participants when using a larger sample (Study 2c). The implications of these categorization and attributional biases are discussed in particular as regards the self-perpetuating nature of perceived group victimhood.
We exploit the cross-country differences in economic freedom to examine the link between the quality of institutions and subjective well-being. Using Veenhoven’s happiness dataset, the evidence suggests countries with better economic institutions and higher level of economic freedom, captured by the security of property rights, open markets and more limited government, are significantly more likely to experience greater subjective well-being after controlling for structural confounders of national subjective well-being such as income, unemployment, inequality, social capital and life satisfaction. The effect of institutions on cross-national happiness is both significant and robust to different model specifications, estimation techniques and possible sources of endogeneity. Furthermore, our panel data analysis reveals that over time higher levels of economic freedom are associated with decreasing subjective well-being after controlling for state dependence and income.
Psychologists have demonstrated the value of diversity—particularly diversity of viewpoints—for enhancing creativity, discovery, and problem solving. But one key type of viewpoint diversity is lacking in academic psychology in general and social psychology in particular: political diversity. This article reviews the available evidence and finds support for four claims: 1) Academic psychology once had considerable political diversity, but has lost nearly all of it in the last 50 years; 2) This lack of political diversity can undermine the validity of social psychological science via mechanisms such as the embedding of liberal values into research questions and methods, steering researchers away from important but politically unpalatable research topics, and producing conclusions that mischaracterize liberals and conservatives alike; 3) Increased political diversity would improve social psychological science by reducing the impact of bias mechanisms such as confirmation bias, and by empowering dissenting minorities to improve the quality of the majority’s thinking; and 4) The underrepresentation of non-liberals in social psychology is most likely due to a combination of self-selection, hostile climate, and discrimination. We close with recommendations for increasing political diversity in social psychology.
Psychologists are politically homogenous to a substantially higher degree than the general population. Moreover, professional psychological organizations, namely, the American Psychological Association (APA), also promote and adopt distinctly partisan research, policy positions, and activist efforts. In this chapter, an analysis of the APA’s press releases since 2000 shows a pervasive left-wing bias. In addition to other threats to the credibility of professional psychology’s reputation (e.g., replication crisis), political and ideological bias is a current and underappreciated threat that requires attention. We discuss ways to improve the quality of psychologists’ work as well as public opinion of the credibility of the profession. These include applying research methods to enhance scientific integrity; expanding the definition of diversity; improving psychology curriculum through integration of material from other disciplines; recognizing and promoting varied moral, ideological, and political viewpoints; and prioritizing scientific inquiry over activism.
This chapter analyzes the political biases inherent in the now popular “social justice counseling” movement. We trace the origins of “social justice counseling” to the multicultural movement in psychology, especially in the field of counseling psychology, over the last 30 years. While recognizing the real benefits of its ecological perspective on client problems, we examine the ways in which social justice counseling expressly politicizes psychotherapy through a politically progressive lens and how that may be harmful to clients as well as counseling students and trainees. We conclude with recommendations for ethical and efficacious psychotherapy and therapist training.
Implicit bias refers to automatically evoked mental associations about social groups. The idea has been influential across the social sciences as a way to explain persistent racial disparities amid changing self-report attitudes. Most research has treated implicit bias as an individual attitude. However, evidence suggests that it is neither a stable individual difference nor a strong correlate of individual behavior. Moreover, the individual-focused approach can lead researchers to neglect systemic racism as a cause of persistent disparities. We argue that implicit bias can be considered a cognitive reflection of systemic racism in the environment. In this view, implicit bias is an ongoing set of associations based on inequalities and stereotypes in the environment. As such, implicit bias changes when contexts change.
This is a study of 12,372 professors in 116 colleges that are the four top US News-ranked colleges in each of 30 states that collect political registration data. We devised the sample to highlight variation in registration arising from individual, college-level, and state-level characteristics. We find an overall Democratic-to-Republican registration ratio of 8.5:1, but age, gender, field, region, and religious affiliation modify the ratios of Democrats to Republicans. This is the first application of logistical modeling to archival faculty registration data. The logistical models mostly confirm the univariate findings but reveal that state- and college-level dummy variables retain their significance when individual, field, and college rank are controlled. Organizational cultures of academic institutions and state political cultures along with better-understood influences of personal and institutional characteristics may influence the propensity of colleges to engage in or deviate from preponderately Democratic hiring.
Race plays an important role in how people think, develop, and behave. In the current article, we queried more than 26,000 empirical articles published between 1974 and 2018 in top-tier cognitive, developmental, and social psychology journals to document how often psychological research acknowledges this reality and to examine whether people who edit, write, and participate in the research are systematically connected. We note several findings. First, across the past five decades, psychological publications that highlight race have been rare, and although they have increased in developmental and social psychology, they have remained virtually nonexistent in cognitive psychology. Second, most publications have been edited by White editors, under which there have been significantly fewer publications that highlight race. Third, many of the publications that highlight race have been written by White authors who employed significantly fewer participants of color. In many cases, we document variation as a function of area and decade. We argue that systemic inequality exists within psychological research and that systemic changes are needed to ensure that psychological research benefits from diversity in editing, writing, and participation. To this end, and in the spirit of the field’s recent emphasis on metascience, we offer recommendations for journals and authors.
Hazardous drinking is an important contributing factor to intimate partner violence (IPV) occurrence. However, only a limited number of community-based alcohol reduction interventions have been tested in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) for their efficacy in reducing IPV. This pilot intervention study tested a 1-month combined behavioral economics and cognitive behavioral therapy intervention to reduce hazardous alcohol use and IPV in Bengaluru, India. Sixty couples were randomized to one of three study arms to test the effect of incentives-only and incentives plus counseling interventions compared with a control condition. Alcohol use among male participants was assessed using breathalyzer tests. Violence experienced by female participants was measured using the Indian Family Violence and Control Scale. Couples in the counseling arm participated in four weekly counseling sessions. Male participants in the incentive arms earned a reward for sobriety (breath alcohol concentration [BrAC] <0.01 g/dl). Results showed that while incentives reduced alcohol use, there was a greater proportion of negative BrAC samples among participants in the counseling arm compared with the control group (0.96 vs. 0.76, p = .03). Violence also decreased in both intervention arms. The estimated mean violence score for the counseling arm was 10.8 points lower than the control arm at 4-month follow-up visit ( p = .02). This study contributes important evidence to the field of alcohol reduction and IPV prevention approaches in LMIC settings and adds to the growing evidence that alcohol reduction is a modifiable means of addressing IPV.
Ten years after sociologist Mary Romero lamented the “ideological and theoretical gulf between immigration research and the sociology of race,” researchers have begun to bridge this theoretical gulf by centering critical race theory in studies of migration. Building on these analyses, this article argues that migration flows and immigrant incorporation are shaped not only by White supremacy but also by patriarchy and global capitalism. Insofar as migrants, predominantly from the Global South, are usually racialized as non-White, and come to work in a labor market shaped by exploitation, oppression, and patriarchy, it is critical to think of migrant flows and settlement within the context of what bell hooks describes as a White supremacist capitalist patriarchy. We draw from examples from our research with a broad spectrum of migrants and their children to elucidate how these three systems of oppression shape the experiences of migrants.
The first volume of its kind, this provocative book evaluates the construct of cultural competence from multiple perspectives. At the intersection of diverse disciplines and domains, contributors argue for greater clarity in understanding the cultural competence construct, a deeper level of analysis as to its multifaceted components, and call for concrete practical objectives and science-based means of measurement. Serious, nuanced discussion addresses challenges, strengths, and limitations of current cultural competence practice in terms of sociocultural concepts (e.g., race, ethnicity) and practical concepts (e.g., sensitivity in the therapeutic relationship, treatment efficacy). In addition, contributors identify future directions for research, training, and practice with the potential to spur the further evolution of this clinically important construct.
This timely book:
• Critiques the cultural competence construct and its evaluation as it is currently disseminated within applied psychology.
• Compares and contrasts how cultural competence is defined within clinical, school, and counseling psychology.
• Analyzes difficulties and challenges in understanding the cultural competence construct as evaluated through the lens of closely related fields outside of applied psychology.
• Spotlights complexities in cultural competence issues pertaining to specific populations.
• Sets out implications for education and training, offering a detailed outline for an ideal college course in cultural competence.
With this level of reasoning and rigor, Cultural Competence in Applied Psychology is sure to stimulate long-overdue dialogue and debate among professionals across a wide variety of fields, such as clinical psychology, social work, child and social psychology, psychotherapy, school psychology, and counseling.
We investigate the voter registration of faculty at 40 leading U.S. universities in the fields of Economics, History, Journalism/Communications, Law, and Psychology. We looked up 7,243 professors and found 3,623 to be registered Democratic and 314 Republican, for an overall D:R ratio of 11.5:1. The D:R ratios for the five fields were: Economics 4.5:1, History 33.5:1, Journalism/Communications 20.0:1, Law 8.6:1, and Psychology 17.4:1. The results indicate that D:R ratios have increased since 2004, and the age profile suggests that in the future they will be even higher. We provide a breakdown by department at each university. The data support the established finding that D:R ratios are highest at the apex of disciplinary pyramids, that is, at the most prestigious departments. We also examine how D:R ratios vary by gender and by region. People interested in ideological diversity or concerned about the errors of leftist outlooks—including students, parents, donors, and taxpayers—might find our results deeply troubling.
Men's and women's personalities appear to differ in several respects. Social role theories of development assume gender differences result primarily from perceived gender roles, gender socialization and sociostructural power differentials. As a consequence, social role theorists expect gender differences in personality to be smaller in cultures with more gender egalitarianism. Several large cross-cultural studies have generated sufficient data for evaluating these global personality predictions. Empirically, evidence suggests gender differences in most aspects of personality-Big Five traits, Dark Triad traits, self-esteem, subjective well-being, depression and values-are conspicuously larger in cultures with more egalitarian gender roles, gender socialization and sociopolitical gender equity. Similar patterns are evident when examining objectively measured attributes such as tested cognitive abilities and physical traits such as height and blood pressure. Social role theory appears inadequate for explaining some of the observed cultural variations in men's and women's personalities. Evolutionary theories regarding ecologically-evoked gender differences are described that may prove more useful in explaining global variation in human personality.
Currently enrolling approximately 900,000 poor children each year, Head Start has served 25 million children and their families since it was established 43 years ago. Presidents and policymakers have embraced and scorned it. At times, scientists have misguided it and the media has misunderstood it. Despite its longevity and renown, much of Head Start's story has never been disclosed to the general public. This book gives a detailed account of the remarkable program, surveying projects that were forerunners of Head Start, its birth during the Johnson administration, its fate during the presidency of George W. Bush, and the many years between; as well as what the future may hold in store for it. The authors offer an inside view of the program's decades of service, detailing the ever-changing waves of politics, ideology, science, media interest, and public mood, which oftentimes threatened the program's very existence. Providing a balanced assessment of Head Start's effectiveness, which has been a matter of debate since its inception, this study strives to answer questions that continue to pervade discussions about the program and its future. For example, why is Head Start, a leader of early childhood services, still struggling to prove itself? Why does it serve such a narrow segment of the population? And how can Head Start continue its mission, as universal pre-school becomes a reality?.
The authors are responsible for the content of this report. We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Jonah Rockoff, whose clear-sighted thinking is behind solutions to many problems in this analysis. We analyze the achievement of 93 percent of the New York City charter school students who were enrolled in test-taking grades (grades 3 through 12) in 2000-01 through 2007-08. More than 94 percent of charter school applicants participate in admissions lotteries. The lotteries are crucial for remedying the self-selection problem because charter school applicants are substantially more likely to be black and poor than students in the traditional public schools. Using the lotteries to form an intention-to-treat variable, we instrument for actual enrollment and compute the charter schools' average treatment-on-the-treated effects on achievement. These are 0.09 standard deviations per year of treatment in math and 0.06 standard deviations per year of treatment in reading. These results are robust, as shown by specification tests for various issues: non-matching, attrition, retention-in-grade, returning to the traditional public schools, and so on. The results do not differ statistically significantly by the race/ethnicity of the student, the gender of the student, the number of years we observe the student, or the lotteried-in percentage of the school. We estimate associations (not causal relationships) between charter schools' policies and their effects on achievement. Policies with fairly consistent positive associations with achievement include a long school year; a greater number of minutes devoted to English during each school day; a small rewards/small penalties disciplinary policy; teacher pay based somewhat on performance or duties, as opposed to a traditional pay scale based strictly on seniority and credentials; and a mission statement that emphasizes academic performance, as opposed to other goals.
Imre Lakatos' philosophical and scientific papers are published here in two volumes. Volume I brings together his very influential but scattered papers on the philosophy of the physical sciences, and includes one important unpublished essay on the effect of Newton's scientific achievement. Volume II presents his work on the philosophy of mathematics (much of it unpublished), together with some critical essays on contemporary philosophers of science and some famous polemical writings on political and educational issues. Imre Lakatos had an influence out of all proportion to the length of his philosophical career. This collection exhibits and confirms the originality, range and the essential unity of his work. It demonstrates too the force and spirit he brought to every issue with which he engaged, from his most abstract mathematical work to his passionate 'Letter to the director of the LSE'. Lakatos' ideas are now the focus of widespread and increasing interest, and these volumes should make possible for the first time their study as a whole and their proper assessment.
For its proponents, "social justice" is usually undefined. Originally a Catholic term, first used about 1840 for a new kind of virtue (or habit) necessary for post-agrarian societies, the term has been bent by secular "pro-gressive" thinkers to mean uniform state distribution of society's advantages and disadvantages. Social justice is really the capacity to organize with others to accomplish ends that benefit the whole community. If people are to live free of state control, they must possess this new virtue of cooperation and association. This is one of the great skills of Americans and, ultimately, the best defense against statism. Let us begin by asking what most people think social justice is. After that, let us review how the term arose. It is a Catholic concept, later taken over by secular progres-sives. What social justice actually is turns out to be very different from the way the term is now used popularly. When the Academics Take Over: Five Common Usages of Social Justice Distribution. Most people' s sense of social justice is generic, amounting to nothing more than what we find in the dictionary under "social justice": "The distribu-tion of advantages and disadvantages in society." Now, notice that the dictionary definition introduces a new key term, "distribution." Alas, the original notion of social justice had very little to do with distribution. Worse, this newly added term suggests that some extra-human force, "the visible hand," does the distri-bution: that is, some very powerful human agency, usually the state.
Playing with the doubled use of the term “revolting”—as an adjective to describe the repulsive inequality gaps that litter the globe and as a delightful gerund to capture the thrilling days of global collective protest—this Lewin address muses about social psychology's debt in politically difficult times of massive inequality and sustained oppression. I venture back to the 1930s for inspiration, reviewing the writings of Lewin, Jahoda, and Dollard, as well as the research of W.E.B. Du Bois in the early 1900s and Ignacio Martín-Baró toward the latter part of the 1900s, to understand how social psychologists have intervened theoretically and empirically to contest injustice, inspire solidarity, and advance more just social arrangements. Calling for research that both documents the collateral damage of neoliberalism and generates alternative visions of democracy and justice, the second half of the article sketches a critical participatory action research project conducted with urban youth, which was designed to challenge both the strategic disinvestment in the public sphere and the concomitant conservatizing pressures on our methods of social inquiry, raising questions about “evidence-based practice” and the current marketing of Randomized Clinical Trials as the “gold standard.”
Who benefits from economic freedom? Results from a panel of 86 countries over the 1990–2005 period suggest that overall
economic freedom has a significant positive effect on subjective well-being. Its dimensions legal security and property rights, sound
money, and regulation are in particular strong predictors of higher well-being. The overall positive effect is not affected by socio-demographics;
the effects of individual dimensions vary, however. Developing countries profit more from higher economic freedom, in particular
from reducing the regulatory burden. Culture moderates the effect: societies that are more tolerant and have a positive attitude
toward the market economy profit the most.