Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T04:12:18.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What kinds of conservatives does social psychology lack, and why?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2015

Lee Ross
Lee Ross*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. lross@stanford.eduhttps://psychology.stanford.edu/lross
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although Duarte et al.'s claims about the potential benefits of greater political diversity in the ranks of social psychology are apt, their discussion of the decline in such diversity, the role played by self-selection, and the specific domains they cite in discussing an anti-conservative bias raise issues that merit closer examination. The claim that sound research and analysis challenging liberal orthodoxies fails to receive a fair hearing in our journals and professional discourse is also disputed.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 38 , 2015 , e156
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

Lippman, W. (1922) Public opinion. Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
Walton, G. M. (2014) The new science of wise psychological interventions. Current Directions in Psychological Science 23:73–82.Google Scholar
Walton, G. M. & Cohen, G. L. (2011) A brief social belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science 331:1447–51.Google Scholar