Political Diversity Will Improve Social Psychological Science

Tuesday, January 6th, 2015

Political diversity will improve social psychological science, some (daring) social psychologists suggest:

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 nonliberals 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.

I enjoyed this passage:

Fourth, we note for the curious reader that the collaborators on this article include one liberal, one centrist, two libertarians, one whose politics defy a simple left-right categorization, and one neo-positivist contrarian who favors a don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy in which scholarship should be judged on its merits. None identifies as conservative or Republican.

(Hat tip to Bryan Caplan.)

Comments

  1. Magus Janus says:

    The problem is that progressive social scientists have no incentive to encourage their ideological opponents to enter the field. It’s about ideological war here, not “being correct.” Some few and far between with integrity might obviously bring up the issue, but the average prog in the field? He couldn’t give a $h!+ and will rationalize it away with “conservatives are anti science” or “reality has a liberal bias” what have you.

    Which is ironic, since the exact opposite is far more likely in the social sciences, i.e. reality having a “right wing” bias.

Leave a Reply