The loss of political psycho-diversity
The terms liberal and conservative in the present U.S. political climate have a different meaning than they did when the field included more self-described conservatives, and more (moderate) Republicans. Beliefs that characterized Eisenhower and Nixon supporters – that is, fiscal conservatism and advocacy of gradual rather than radical social change (to say nothing of acceptance of a highly progressive tax structure) – are not conservatives of the sort Duarte et al. have in mind when they speak of under-representation. Social scientists who hold such traditional GOP views, but nevertheless believe that government should play an active role in addressing social ills and are comfortable with extension of gay rights, and the freedom of women to seek abortions, are unlikely to label themselves as “conservatives” lest they be tarred with the same brush as those who reject such views. The authors present no evidence, empirical or even anecdotal, of hostility to more traditional types of conservatism (such as that endorsed by the Conservative parties in the United Kingdom or Canada). In short, what is largely absent, and rejected in social psychology (and in our elite universities), is a particular strain of conservatism – one heavily influenced by evangelical Christianity and/or by resentment of and resistance to changes in America's demography and social attitudes.
Interestingly, Duarte et al. seem unconcerned about the virtual disappearance from our ranks of academicians with perspectives far to the left of the typical liberal Democrat – that is, individuals who do not accept the view that a combination of capitalism (even with more constraints) and democracy is the only imaginable road to a good society.
Self-selection and the politics of social psychology
Duarte et al. are correct in pointing to self-selection as a source of liberal over-representation. Some of the central tenets of social psychology clearly have more appeal for students who want to explore sources of social ills and potential remedies than those who wish to preserve the status quo. Liberal professors no doubt tend to choose examples, both in the classroom teaching and their research, in which conservative rather than liberal foibles are offered as cases in point. But Duarte et al. cite little, if any, evidence that research reports focusing on liberal susceptibility to particular biases, or reports documenting mutual susceptibility, are in fact subject to less critical scrutiny by journal reviewers and editors (as opposed to survey respondents or research participants) than the reports of conservative susceptibility.
Duarte et al. fail to mention that some of the most heavily lauded applied work in our field – notably, in education – features findings highly consistent with such traditional conservative values as persistence in the face of adversity, and a sense of personal responsibility and self-efficacy. Most applied work in social psychology is in reality not so much liberal in spirit as reformist. Demonstrations that modest interventions can bear fruit (Walton Reference Walton2014; Walton & Cohen Reference Walton and Cohen2011) challenges both leftist claims that disadvantage cannot be overcome without structural changes in society and rightist claims that those who are faring badly are doing so primarily because of deficits in motivation, ability, or character.
Ill-chosen exemplars of liberal bias
The link between conservative ideology on the one hand and resistance to evidence of climate change and its anthropogenic origins, and accordingly to rejection of calls for action on the other is by no means an obvious one. (Moreover such a linkage is largely restricted to the United States). Stewardship of the earth, maintaining the biological status quo, and conservation of resources are obligations one might expect conservatives to take more seriously than liberals. How and why climate-change denial has become such a hallmark for so many conservative Republicans is an interesting and timely challenge for social scientists to address. (I would suggest “follow the money.”) But given where the weight of evidence lies, a lack of evenhandedness in treating the input of two sides in this debate is not compelling evidence of an anti-conservative bias. Other domains (education, policing, welfare economics, etc.) would surely provide more fertile ground in the search for evidence that journal editors and granting agencies are unwilling to support work that challenges liberal orthodoxies with convincing data.
With respect to stereotype accuracy, the discussion offered by Duarte et al. lacks historical perspective. The original concept of a stereotype was more than the assumption of some statistical relationship between group membership and some negative (or positive) characteristic. Rather, it referred to the oversimplified belief that all or virtually all members of a particular group share some characteristic, as an essential quality (Lippman Reference Lippman1922). Whether the types of base-rates that Duarte et al. cite are given more weight or less weight than they merit on Bayesian grounds – and by whom – is an empirical question perhaps worth investigation (although the answer surely depends on the stipulated group and characteristic). But that question was not what motivated researchers within the social sciences to address the phenomenon of stereotyping. Their concern was the consequences of stereotypes for those subject to them, and for those holding them. References to “inaccurate” stereotypes do oversimplify the issue, but so do claims that particular stereotypes are “accurate” – especially in the absence of discussion of the factors that produce and sustain the relevant differences in actions and outcomes.
Conclusions
It would be good for the field of social psychology if thoughtful conservatives (and other thoughtful questioners of orthodoxy) were contributing more to our journals, and if “political correctness” of a sort that can limit inquiry and stifle classroom discussion were less in evidence. It may well be that slipshod work and arguments that give comfort to liberal orthodoxies are subjected to less critical scrutiny than those that support conservative beliefs. Of greater concern would be evidence (which I did not find in Duarte et al.'s article) that well-done work that supports conservatives orthodoxies or challenges liberal ones fails to get a fair hearing or merited support within our discipline. Indeed, the seriousness with which social psychologists have taken the issues raised by the authors of the present article and the other papers that they cite, shows that dissenting voices are both being aired and prompting vigorous discussion.
People of all political hues are bound to view evidence and arguments through the prism of their understandings and values, and to create pressures to uniformity. One thus cannot disagree that greater political diversity in our field (and other kinds of diversity as well) would benefit us. That conceded, let me comment on three issue raised in the target article that I think worth further critical consideration.
The loss of political psycho-diversity
The terms liberal and conservative in the present U.S. political climate have a different meaning than they did when the field included more self-described conservatives, and more (moderate) Republicans. Beliefs that characterized Eisenhower and Nixon supporters – that is, fiscal conservatism and advocacy of gradual rather than radical social change (to say nothing of acceptance of a highly progressive tax structure) – are not conservatives of the sort Duarte et al. have in mind when they speak of under-representation. Social scientists who hold such traditional GOP views, but nevertheless believe that government should play an active role in addressing social ills and are comfortable with extension of gay rights, and the freedom of women to seek abortions, are unlikely to label themselves as “conservatives” lest they be tarred with the same brush as those who reject such views. The authors present no evidence, empirical or even anecdotal, of hostility to more traditional types of conservatism (such as that endorsed by the Conservative parties in the United Kingdom or Canada). In short, what is largely absent, and rejected in social psychology (and in our elite universities), is a particular strain of conservatism – one heavily influenced by evangelical Christianity and/or by resentment of and resistance to changes in America's demography and social attitudes.
Interestingly, Duarte et al. seem unconcerned about the virtual disappearance from our ranks of academicians with perspectives far to the left of the typical liberal Democrat – that is, individuals who do not accept the view that a combination of capitalism (even with more constraints) and democracy is the only imaginable road to a good society.
Self-selection and the politics of social psychology
Duarte et al. are correct in pointing to self-selection as a source of liberal over-representation. Some of the central tenets of social psychology clearly have more appeal for students who want to explore sources of social ills and potential remedies than those who wish to preserve the status quo. Liberal professors no doubt tend to choose examples, both in the classroom teaching and their research, in which conservative rather than liberal foibles are offered as cases in point. But Duarte et al. cite little, if any, evidence that research reports focusing on liberal susceptibility to particular biases, or reports documenting mutual susceptibility, are in fact subject to less critical scrutiny by journal reviewers and editors (as opposed to survey respondents or research participants) than the reports of conservative susceptibility.
Duarte et al. fail to mention that some of the most heavily lauded applied work in our field – notably, in education – features findings highly consistent with such traditional conservative values as persistence in the face of adversity, and a sense of personal responsibility and self-efficacy. Most applied work in social psychology is in reality not so much liberal in spirit as reformist. Demonstrations that modest interventions can bear fruit (Walton Reference Walton2014; Walton & Cohen Reference Walton and Cohen2011) challenges both leftist claims that disadvantage cannot be overcome without structural changes in society and rightist claims that those who are faring badly are doing so primarily because of deficits in motivation, ability, or character.
Ill-chosen exemplars of liberal bias
The link between conservative ideology on the one hand and resistance to evidence of climate change and its anthropogenic origins, and accordingly to rejection of calls for action on the other is by no means an obvious one. (Moreover such a linkage is largely restricted to the United States). Stewardship of the earth, maintaining the biological status quo, and conservation of resources are obligations one might expect conservatives to take more seriously than liberals. How and why climate-change denial has become such a hallmark for so many conservative Republicans is an interesting and timely challenge for social scientists to address. (I would suggest “follow the money.”) But given where the weight of evidence lies, a lack of evenhandedness in treating the input of two sides in this debate is not compelling evidence of an anti-conservative bias. Other domains (education, policing, welfare economics, etc.) would surely provide more fertile ground in the search for evidence that journal editors and granting agencies are unwilling to support work that challenges liberal orthodoxies with convincing data.
With respect to stereotype accuracy, the discussion offered by Duarte et al. lacks historical perspective. The original concept of a stereotype was more than the assumption of some statistical relationship between group membership and some negative (or positive) characteristic. Rather, it referred to the oversimplified belief that all or virtually all members of a particular group share some characteristic, as an essential quality (Lippman Reference Lippman1922). Whether the types of base-rates that Duarte et al. cite are given more weight or less weight than they merit on Bayesian grounds – and by whom – is an empirical question perhaps worth investigation (although the answer surely depends on the stipulated group and characteristic). But that question was not what motivated researchers within the social sciences to address the phenomenon of stereotyping. Their concern was the consequences of stereotypes for those subject to them, and for those holding them. References to “inaccurate” stereotypes do oversimplify the issue, but so do claims that particular stereotypes are “accurate” – especially in the absence of discussion of the factors that produce and sustain the relevant differences in actions and outcomes.
Conclusions
It would be good for the field of social psychology if thoughtful conservatives (and other thoughtful questioners of orthodoxy) were contributing more to our journals, and if “political correctness” of a sort that can limit inquiry and stifle classroom discussion were less in evidence. It may well be that slipshod work and arguments that give comfort to liberal orthodoxies are subjected to less critical scrutiny than those that support conservative beliefs. Of greater concern would be evidence (which I did not find in Duarte et al.'s article) that well-done work that supports conservatives orthodoxies or challenges liberal ones fails to get a fair hearing or merited support within our discipline. Indeed, the seriousness with which social psychologists have taken the issues raised by the authors of the present article and the other papers that they cite, shows that dissenting voices are both being aired and prompting vigorous discussion.