This book examines the traditional assumptions made by academics and professionals alike that have embedded sociopolitical biases that impede practice. and undermine efforts to achieve an objective scientific status. If allowed to go unchallenged, the credibility of psychology as a discipline is compromised. This contributed volume thoroughly and comprehensively examines this concern in a conceptually and empirically rigorous manner and offers constructive solutions for minimizing undue political influences within the field of psychology. Societies in the 21st century desperately need reliable psychological science, but we don’t have it. This important volume explains one of the main reasons why we are making little progress on any issue that gets contaminated by the left-right culture war: because the field of psychology is an enthusiastic member of one of the two teams, so it rejects findings and researchers who question its ideological commitments. The authors of this engaging volume also show us the way out. They diagnose the social dynamics of bias and point to reforms that would give us the psychology that we need to address 21st century problems. Jonathan Haidt, Thomas Cooley Professor of Ethical Leadership, NYU—Stern School of Business and author of The Righteous Mind The boundaries of free speech, censorship, moral cultures, social justice, and ideological biases are among the many incendiary topics discussed in this book. If you are looking for a deep-dive into real-world contemporary controversies, Ideological and Political Bias in Psychology fits the bill. The chapters are thoughtful and thought-provoking. Most readers will find something to agree with and something to rage at in almost every chapter. It just may change how you think about some of these topics. Diane F. Halpern, Professor of Psychology Emerita, Claremont McKenna College and Past President, American Psychological Association Unless the political left is always correct about everything (in which case, we wouldn’t need to do research; we could just ask a leftist), the growing political monoculture of social science is a major barrier to our search for the truth. This volume shows how ideological bias should be treated as a source of research error, up there with classic methodological flaws like non-random assignment and non-blind measurement. Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University, and the author of Rationality An important read for academics curious about how their politics fashions beliefs that too often are uncritically taken for granted, and for non-academics wondering why we can't shake off the politics that so influences scientific work. Vernon Smith, Nobel Laureate in Economic Sciences and George L. Argyros Chair in Finance and Economics, Chapman University Advances and deepens empirically rigorous scholarship into biased political influences affecting academic and professional psychology. Offers constructive solutions for minimizing undue political influences within psychology and moving the field forward. Serves as a resource for psychological academicians, researchers, practitioners, and consultants seeking to restore the principles of accurate science and effective practice to their respective areas of research.

Why we don't live in a post-truth society but rather a myside society: what science tells us about the bias that poisons our politics. In The Bias That Divides Us, psychologist Keith Stanovich argues provocatively that we don't live in a post-truth society, as has been claimed, but rather a myside society. Our problem is not that we are unable to value and respect truth and facts, but that we are unable to agree on commonly accepted truth and facts. We believe that our side knows the truth. Post-truth? That describes the other side. The inevitable result is political polarization. Stanovich shows what science can tell us about myside bias: how common it is, how to avoid it, and what purposes it serves. Stanovich explains that although myside bias is ubiquitous, it is an outlier among cognitive biases. It is unpredictable. Intelligence does not inoculate against it, and myside bias in one domain is not a good indicator of bias shown in any other domain. Stanovich argues that because of its outlier status, myside bias creates a true blind spot among the cognitive elite--those who are high in intelligence, executive functioning, or other valued psychological dispositions. They may consider themselves unbiased and purely rational in their thinking, but in fact they are just as biased as everyone else. Stanovich investigates how this bias blind spot contributes to our current ideologically polarized politics, connecting it to another recent trend: the decline of trust in university research as a disinterested arbiter.

A tax revolt almost as momentous as the Boston Tea Party erupted in California in 1978. Its reverberations are still being felt, yet no one is quite sure what general lessons can be drawn from observing its course. this book is an in-depth study of this most recent and notable taxpayer's rebellion: Howard Jarvis and Proposition 13, the Gann measure of 1979, and Proposition (Jarvis II) of 1980.

Social scientists have long known that political beliefs bias the way they think about, understand, and interpret the world around them. In this volume, scholars from social psychology and related fields explore the ways in which social scientists themselves have allowed their own political biases to influence their research. These biases may influence the development of research hypotheses, the design of studies and methods and materials chosen to test hypotheses, decisions to publish or not publish results based on their consistency with one’s prior political beliefs, and how results are described and dissemination to the popular press. The fact that these processes occur within academic disciplines, such as social psychology, that strongly skew to the political left compounds the problem. Contributors to this volume not only identify and document the ways that social psychologists’ political beliefs can and have influenced research, but also offer solutions towards a more depoliticized social psychology that can become a model for discourse across the social sciences.

This volume is the first to aim at summarizing all of the scientific literature published so far regarding male-female differences and similarities, not only in behavior, but also in basic biology, physiology, health, perceptions, emotions, and attitudes. Results from over 18,000 studies have been condensed into more than 1,900 tables, with each table pertaining to a specific possible sex difference. Even research pertaining to how men and women are perceived (stereotyped) as being different is covered. Throughout this book's eleven years in preparation, no exclusions were made in terms of subject areas, cultures, time periods, or even species. The book is accompanied by downloadable resources containing all 18,000+ references cited in the book. Sex Differences is a monumental resource for any researcher, student, or professional who requires an assessment of the weight of evidence that currently exists regarding any sex difference of interest. It is also suitable as a text in graduate courses pertaining to gender or human sexuality.

Congress is crippled by ideological conflict. The political parties are more polarized today than at any time since the Civil War. Americans disagree, fiercely, about just about everything, from terrorism and national security, to taxes and government spending, to immigration and gay marriage. Well, American elites disagree fiercely. But average Americans do not. This, at least, was the position staked out by Philip Converse in his famous essay on belief systems, which drew on surveys carried out during the Eisenhower Era to conclude that most Americans were innocent of ideology. In Neither Liberal nor Conservative, Donald Kinder and Nathan Kalmoe argue that ideological innocence applies nearly as well to the current state of American public opinion. Real liberals and real conservatives are found in impressive numbers only among those who are deeply engaged in political life. The ideological battles between American political elites show up as scattered skirmishes in the general public, if they show up at all. If ideology is out of reach for all but a few who are deeply and seriously engaged in political life, how do Americans decide whom to elect president; whether affirmative action is good or bad? Kinder and Kalmoe offer a persuasive group-centered answer. Political preferences arise less from ideological differences than from the attachments and antagonisms of group life.

Features the groundbreaking law-related research of political psychologists. Includes leading legal scholars' commentary and analysis of political psychologists' work. The first book to bring together experts to discuss the interaction between psychology, ideology, and law.