Political Diversity in Social and Personality 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. We 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.

[1]  J. Jost,et al.  Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. , 2003, Psychological bulletin.

[2]  Deborah A. Prentice,et al.  Pluralistic Ignorance and the Perpetuation of Social Norms by Unwitting Actors , 1996 .

[3]  J. Duckitt,et al.  A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice , 2001 .

[4]  R. Bellamy,et al.  The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Political Thought , 2006 .

[5]  P. Tetlock.  Political psychology or politicized psychology: Is the road to scientific hell paved with good moral intentions? , 1994 .

[6]  J. Haidt.  The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. , 2001, Psychological review.

[7]  J Tudor-Hart,et al.  On the nature of prejudice. , 1961, The Eugenics review.

[8]  S. Lipset.  Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics , 1960 .

[9]  Daniel B. Klein,et al.  Faculty partisan affiliations in all disciplines: A voter‐registration study , 2005 .

[10]  P. Williams.  Fearful warriors: a psychological profile of U.S.-Soviet relations , 1985 .

[11]  E. Fosse,et al.  Why are professors liberal? , 2012 .

[12]  L. Ross,et al.  Actual versus assumed differences in construal: 'naive realism' in intergroup perception and conflict , 1995 .

[13]  S. M. Rosenwasser,et al.  Attitudes Toward a Hypothetical Male or Female Presidential Candidate-A Research Note' , 1988 .

[14]  L. Ross,et al.  Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence , 1979 .

[15]  Daniel B. Klein,et al.  Professors and their politics: The policy views of social scientists , 2005 .

[16]  J. Jost.  The end of the end of ideology. , 2006, The American psychologist.

[17]  Richard E. Redding,et al.  Sociopolitical diversity in psychology. The case for pluralism. , 2001, The American psychologist.

[18]  M. Peffley,et al.  How are Foreign Policy Attitudes Structured? A Hierarchical Model , 1987, American Political Science Review.

[19]  Michael A. Dimock,et al.  Gauging the Impact of Growing Nonresponse on Estimates from a National RDD Telephone Survey , 2006 .

[20]  Robert J. Robinson,et al.  Extremism, Power, and the Imagined Basis of Social Conflict , 1996 .