Piercarlo Valdesolo asks the quesion - Would more political diversity increase the validity of social psychological findings? Does Social Psychology need more political diversity? Here is one thing on which everyone can agree - social psychology is overwhelmingly composed of liberals - around 85 per cent. The question of why this is the case, and whether it presents a problem for the field, is more controversial. The topic has exploded out of our conference halls and into major news outlets over the past several years, with claims of both overt hostility and subtle bias against conservative students, colleagues, and their publications, being met with reactions ranging from knee-jerk dismissal to sincere self-reflection and measured methodological critique.
A recent paper led by Jose Duarte of Arizona State University attempts to organize the existing empirical research relevant to this debate. There are two central questions here. First, is the ideological imbalance the result of some kind of bias against conservatives, or some more benign cause, like self-selection into the field? And second, independent of the cause, would more political diversity actually improve the validity of our science? Duarte et al provide evidence suggesting that social psychology is not a welcoming environment for conservatives. Papers are reviewed differently depending on whether they are considered to support liberal vs. conservative positions, and anonymous surveys reveal a considerable percentage of social psychologists willing to explicitly report negative attitudes towards conservatives.
This should not be surprising us. Everything social psychologists know about group behavior group behavior tells us that overwhelming homogeneity, especially when defined through an important component of one identity like political ideology, will lead to negativity towards an outgroup. We also know a thing or two about confirmation bias and all the ways in which it can affect our decisions.
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
