Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T04:54:48.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 8 - Research Suffers When We All Agree

How Sociopolitical Homogeneity Impairs Critical Thinking in the Academy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2019

By
Stephen J. Ceci  and
Wendy M. Williams
Edited by
Robert J. Sternberg  and
Diane F. Halpern
Robert J. Sternberg
Affiliation:
Cornell University, New York
Diane F. Halpern
Affiliation:
Claremont McKenna College, California
Get access

Summary

The political atmosphere on US college campuses is overwhelmingly left-leaning and liberal, with the vast majority of faculty self-identifying as socially progressive. Considerable research on cognitive biases has demonstrated the pervasive role of people’s attitudes, which act as filters during thinking and reasoning – particularly about politically-valenced topics. The prevalence of faculty from one side of the political spectrum coupled with the omnipresence of cognitive biases means that college campuses and the research done by their faculty runs the risk of favoring one side during what should, scientifically-speaking, be a process of fair and open inquiry. We discuss these phenomena and document numerous examples in which lack of genuine viewpoint diversity has spelled trouble for sound science. We advocate a more ideologically-diverse scientific workforce to better enable true diversity of thinking on key issues of our time.

Keywords

viewpoint diversitysociopolitical diversitycognitive biasesideological-commitment biasactively open-minded thinking
Type
Chapter
Information
Critical Thinking in Psychology , pp. 173 - 196
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ceci, S. J., Peters, D., & Plotkin, J. (1985). Human Subjects Review: Personal values and the regulation of social science research. American Psychologist, 40(9), 994–1002. DOI:10.1037/0003-066x.40.9.994Google Scholar
Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W.M. (2015). Women have substantial advantage in STEM faculty hiring, except when competing against more-accomplished men. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01532Google Scholar
Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2018a). Socio-political values infiltrate the assessment of scientific research. In Crawford, J. T. & Jussim, L. (Eds.), The Politics of Social Psychology (pp. 156–167). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2018b). Who decides what is acceptable speech on campus? Why restricting free speech is not the answer. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 13(3), 299–323. DOI:10.1177/1745691618767324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38. DOI:10.1017/S0140525X14000430Google Scholar
Ehrlinger, J., Gilovich, T., & Ross, L. (2005). Peering into the bias blind spot: People’s assessments of bias in themselves and others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 680–692. DOI:10.1177/0146167204271570CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451–482. DOI:10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilovich, T., & Ross, L. (2016). The wisest one in the room: How you can benefit from social psychology’s most powerful insights. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Halpern, D. F. (2014). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (5th ed.) New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Honeycutt, N., & Freberg, L. (2017). The liberal and conservative experience across academic disciplines: An extension of Inbar and Lammers. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 115–123. DOI:10.1177/1948550616667617Google Scholar
Inbar, Y., & Lammers, J. (2012). Political diversity in social and personality psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 496–503. DOI:10.1177/1745691612448792CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Irwin, H. J., & Marks, A. D. G. (2013). The “survey of scientifically unaccepted beliefs”: A new measure of paranormal and related beliefs. Australian Journal of Parapsychology, 13(2), 133–167.Google Scholar
Isaacs, J. B. (2007, November 13). Economic Mobility of Families Across Generations. Brookings Report. Online. https://www.brookings.edu/research/economic-mobility-of-families-across-generationsGoogle Scholar
Kahan, D. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(4), 407–424.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.Google Scholar
Klaczynski, P. A. (1997). Bias in adolescents’ everyday reasoning and its relationship with intellectual ability, personal theories, and self-serving motivation. Developmental Psychology, 33, 273–283. DOI:10.1037/0012-1649.33.2.273CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klaczynski, P. A., & Lavallee, K. L. (2005). Domain-specific identity, epistemic regulation, and intellectual ability as predictors of belief-based reasoning: A dual-process perspective. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92, 1–24 DOI:10.1016/j.jecp.2005.05.001Google Scholar
Langbert, M. (2018). Homogenous: The political affiliations of elite liberal arts college faculty. Academic Questions, 31(2), 186–197. DOI:10.1007/s12129-018-9700-xGoogle Scholar
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098–2109 DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. (1942). Science and Technology in a Democratic Order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, I, 115–126. Reprinted in 1973 in R. K. Merton, The Sociology of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220. DOI:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175Google Scholar
Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. (2011). Building a better America – one wealth quintile at a time. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6:1. DOI:10.1177/1745691610393524Google Scholar
Pronin, E., Lin, D. Y., & Ross, L. (2002). The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 369–381.Google Scholar
Sá, W., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (1999). The domain specificity and generality of belief bias: Searching for a generalizable critical thinking skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 497–510. DOI:10.1037//0022-0663.91.3.497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., & Toplak, M. E. (2019). The need for intellectual diversity in psychological science: Our own studies of actively open-minded thinking as a case study. Cognition , 187, 156–166. DOI:10.1016/j.cognition.2019.03.006Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1997). Reasoning independently of prior belief AOT 36 and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 342–357. DOI:10.1037/0022-0663.89.2.342Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998). Individual differences in rational thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 161–188. DOI:10.1037/0096-3445.127.2.161Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 645–665. DOI:10.1017/S0140525X00003435Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2013). Myside bias, rational thinking, and intelligence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 259–264. DOI:10.1177/0963721413480174Google Scholar
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755–769. DOI:10.1111/j.1540–5907.2006.00214.xGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy and probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293–315. DOI:10.1037/0033-295X.90.4.293Google Scholar
Valla, J. M., Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2011). The accuracy of inferences about criminality based on facial appearance. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 5(1), 66–91. DOI:10.1037/h0099274Google Scholar
Von Hippel, W., & Buss, D. M. (2018). Do ideologically driven scientific agendas impede the understanding and acceptance of evolutionary principles in social psychology? In Crawford, J. T. & Jussim, L. (Eds.), The politics of social psychology (pp. 7–25). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wason, P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 273–281. DOI:10.1080/14640746808400161Google Scholar
Watts, D. J. (2011). Everything is obvious: How common sense fails. New York: Crown Business.Google Scholar
Williams, W. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2015). National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 preference for women on STEM tenure track. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(17), 5360–5365. DOI:10.1073/pnas.1418878112CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×