A conservative's social psychology

1995

This course was created to examine institutionalized prejudice in the field of psychology. Psychology, as a discipline, has been an arena for examining the structure and etiology of prejudice (Duckitt; Myers). Coetaneously, psychology has been rife with institutionalized prejudice in terms of theories, especially Freud's theory (see Kittay; Westerlund; the investigation of intelligence (e.g., Gould; Zuckerman and Brody) sex differences (e.g., Baumeister; Gould), and racial differences (e.g., Fairchild; Gould), and in diagnostic criteria and categorization (e.g., Franks; Tavris; Wright et al.). This course was designed to examine these issues and to look for ways in which we might contribute to more objective research, teaching, and service in psychology and allied disciplines. This overview focuses primarily on prejudice in the areas of psychometry and diagnostics.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2015

Based on our comparison of political orientation and research interests of social psychologists in capitalist Western countries versus post-Communist Eastern European countries, we suggest that Duarte and colleagues' claim of liberal bias in the field seems American-centric. We propose an alternative account of political biases which focuses on the academic tendency to explain attitudes of lower status groups.

American Psychologist, 1993

The biological concept of race has long been controversial in psychology. Although many psychologists have challenged the concept of race, others have espoused it as a deductive premise and applied it as an inferential and research factor and variable, especially regarding Black-White IQ differences. Although race and its use have been polemically disputed for decades, no disciplinewide, concerted action within psychology has been taken to ascertain the scientific meaning of race and to determine its proper application. Psychology's inaction contrasts with deliberate steps taken by other national and international scientific groups. This article examines a variety of problems concerning race in psychology: (a) definition, (b) application, (c) invoking authority and references for genetic knowledge, and (d) passive inaction by psychologists and professional associations.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2015

Psychologists have demonstrated the value of diversityparticularly diversity of viewpointsfor 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. (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.

A lack of political diversity in psychology is said to lead to a number of pernicious outcomes, including biased research and active discrimination against conservatives. The authors of this study surveyed a large number (combined N = 800) of social and personality psychologists and discovered several interesting facts. First, although only 6% described themselves as conservative “overall,” there was more diversity of political opinion on economic issues and foreign policy. Second, respondents significantly underestimated the proportion of conservatives among their colleagues. Third, conservatives fear negative consequences of revealing their political beliefs to their colleagues. Finally, they are right to do so: In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists said that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues. The more liberal respondents were, the more they said they would discriminate.

Behav Brain Sci, 2014

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.

Social Justice Research, 2017

Contemporary social scientists typically define prejudice as an evaluation, negative or positive, of a social group or its members. This conceptualisation can be contrasted with the definition offered by Allport (1954) in his seminal book The Nature of Prejudice: 'an antipathy based upon a faulty and inflexible generalization … [that] may be directed toward a group as a whole, or toward an individual because he is a member of that group' (p. 9). Kenneth Clark credited Allport with 'establish[ing] the parameters for a scholarly social science approach to the discussion and understanding of this complex human problem' (Allport, 1979, p. ix). Sibley and Barlow's (2017) Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice follows this tradition, illuminating the necessity of diverse approaches for tackling this 'complex human problem' that is prejudice. In the present essay, we offer a critical review of Sibley and Barlow's (2017) edited Handbook. To assess its contribution to the study of prejudice, an overview of the long history of the prejudice literature in psychology, as well as related social science fields, is necessary. The study of prejudice has a longer history in sociology and anthropology compared to psychology. Ethnocentrism, for instance, was introduced by Gumplowicz (1883, 1892), one of the founders of sociology, and expanded on by sociologist Sumner (1906, 1911; as cited by Bizumic, 2014). Gumplowicz identified the merit of a sociological study of intergroup relations, an idea that was later echoed and refined by Sumner. Complementing these works, psychologists adopted a perspective focused primarily on the individual-level causes of prejudice. Psychologists' introduction to the field was their application of recently developed mental abilities tests (

Social Issues and Policy Review, 2011

In this reflection on our term as coeditors of Social Issues and Policy Review (SIPR), we consider what we have learned from our work on the journal and what challenges lie ahead. We suggest that SIPR has been successful as a platform for work demonstrating the relevance of psychological research to issues of concern to policy makers and to the general public. It has been less effective, however, in its goal of stimulating more scholars in the discipline to engage in socially relevant research. We suggest that the current reward system within our discipline is not conducive to research that addresses broad societal issues, and that the emphasis on internal validity has limited the focus of our work. We call on psychologists to bridge micro and macro levels of analysis and to take their rightful place among those making a difference in the world.

Feminism & Psychology, 2002