Is research in social psychology politically biased? Systematic empirical tests and a forecasting survey to address the controversy
Is research in social psychology politically biased? Systematic empirical tests and a forecasting survey to address the controversy
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jesp.2018.06.004
复制
发表时间：
2018-11-01
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
Uhlmann, Eric Luis
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Eitan, Orly;Viganola, Domenico;Uhlmann, Eric Luis
本研究首次对政治在学术研究中的作用进行了系统的实证检验。在社会心理学领域的大量科学摘要样本中，我们发现了评价上的差异，比如保守派被描述得比自由派更消极，以及解释上的差异，比如保守主义比自由主义更有可能成为解释的焦点。鉴于目前关于政治化科学的争论，一项预测调查允许科学家对结果进行先验的经验预测，然后根据证据改变他们的信念。参与研究的科学家准确地预测了评估性差异和解释性差异的方向，但同时显著高估了两种效应的大小。作为对实证结果的回应，科学家们还更新了他们关于政治偏见的更广泛的信念，为解决跨领域的分歧性科学争议提供了一个模型。
The present investigation provides the first systematic empirical tests for the role of politics in academic research. In a large sample of scientific abstracts from the field of social psychology, we find both evaluative differences, such that conservatives are described more negatively than liberals, and explanatory differences, such that conservatism is more likely to be the focus of explanation than liberalism. In light of the ongoing debate about politicized science, a forecasting survey permitted scientists to state a priori empirical predictions about the results, and then change their beliefs in light of the evidence. Participating scientists accurately predicted the direction of both the evaluative and explanatory differences, but at the same time significantly overestimated both effect sizes. Scientists also updated their broader beliefs about political bias in response to the empirical results, providing a model for addressing divisive scientific controversies across fields.