Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Adversarial Collaboration: The Next Science Reform

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Ideological and Political Bias in Psychology

Abstract

The behavioral sciences have taken a substantial reputational hit over the past decade. Some highly publicized findings have failed to replicate, and many highly touted “science-based” interventions have failed to produce promised positive social change—even when massive efforts are dedicated to making them work. We contend that the ideological homogeneity of the social sciences has entrenched certain scientific orthodoxies and taboos that have protected weak ideas from rigorous scrutiny and contributed to the replication crisis. Open science practices, although a big step in the right direction, leave many researcher degrees of freedom on the table that can bias methodological decisions and research conclusions. Adversarial collaborations, a methodological procedure in which disagreeing scholars work together to resolve their empirical disputes, are the next necessary science reform for addressing lingering weaknesses in social scientific norms. Adversarial collaborations will further minimize false positives, expedite scientific corrections, stimulate progress for stalemated scientific debates, and ultimately improve the quality of social scientific outputs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abramowitz, S. I., Gomes, B., & Abramowitz, C. V. (1975). Publish or politic: Referee bias in manuscript review. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5, 187–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acuña-Partal, C. (2016). Notes on Charles Darwin’s thoughts on translation and the publishing history of the European versions of [on] the origin of species. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 24(1), 7–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerlof, G. A., & Michaillat, P. (2018). Persistence of false paradigms in low-power sciences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, 13228–13233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Axt, J. R., Ebersole, C. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2016). An unintentional, robust, and replicable pro- black bias in social judgment. Social Cognition, 34, 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahník, Š., & Vranka, M. A. (2017). Growth mindset is not associated with scholastic aptitude in a large sample of university applicants. Personality and Individual Differences, 117, 139–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bald, M., & Karolides, N. J. (2014). Literature suppressed on political grounds. Infobase Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baltiansky, D., Jost, J., & Craig, M. A. (2020). At whose expense? System justification and the appreciation of stereotypical humor targeting high vs. low status groups. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 34(3), 375–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanton, H., Jaccard, J., Strauts, E., Mitchell, G., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). Toward a meaningful metric of implicit prejudice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1468–1481.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bowes, S. M., Blanchard, M. C., Costello, T. H., Abramowitz, A. I., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2020). Intellectual humility and between-party animus: Implications for affective polarization in two community samples. Journal of Research in Personality, 88, 103992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowes, S. M., Costello, T. H., Lee, C., McElroy-Heltzel, S., Davis, D. E., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2021). Stepping outside the Echo chamber: Is intellectual humility associated with less political myside bias? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48, 150.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K. (1944). The public be banned! ALA Bulletin, 38(11), 443–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. (2018, July 26). Most Americans say higher ed is heading in wrong direction, but partisans disagree on why. Pew. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/07/26/most-americans-say-higher-ed-is-heading-in-wrong-direction-but-partisans-disagree-on-why/

  • Buss, D. M., & von Hippel, W. (2018). Psychological barriers to evolutionary psychology: Ideological bias and coalitional adaptations. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 6(1), 148–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Holzmeister, F., Ho, T. H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., et al. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in nature and science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(9), 637–644.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carney, D. R., Cuddy, A. J., & Yap, A. J. (2010). Power posing: Brief nonverbal displays affect neuroendocrine levels and risk tolerance. Psychological Science, 21(10), 1363–1368.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ceci, S. J., Peters, D., & Plotkin, J. (1985). Human subjects review, personal values, and the regulation of social science research. American Psychologist, 40, 994–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C. J., & Winegard, B. M. (2020). Tribalism in war and peace: The nature and evolution of ideological epistemology and its significance for modern social science. Psychological Inquiry, 31, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C. J., Chen, E. E., & Ditto, P. H. (2015). Moral coherence processes: Constructing culpability and consequences. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 123–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C. J., Liu, B. S., Winegard, B. M., & Ditto, P. H. (2019). Tribalism is human nature. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28, 587–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C. J., Winegard, B. M., & Farkas, D. (2020). A cross-cultural analysis of censorship on campuses [Unpublished manuscript]. Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C. J., Fjeldmark, M., Baumeister, R. F., German, K., Lu, L., Tice, D., von Hippel, B., Winegard, B. M., & Tetlock, P. E. (2021a). Taboos and self-censorship in the social sciences [Unpublished manuscript]. Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C. J., Honeycutt, N., & Jussim, L. (2021b). Replicability and the psychology of science. In S. Lilienfeld, A. Masuda, & W. O’Donohue (Eds.), Questionable research practices in psychology. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C. J., Costello, T., Mitchell, G., & Tetlock, P. E. (2022). Keep your enemies close: Adversarial collaborations will improve behavioral science. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 11(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuddy, A. J., Wilmuth, C. A., Yap, A. J., & Carney, D. R. (2015). Preparatory power posing affects nonverbal presence and job interview performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1286–1295.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. (1859/1909). The origin of species. PF Collier & son.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ditto, P. H., Clark, C. J., Liu, B. S., Wojcik, S. P., Chen, E. E., Grady, R. H., et al. (2019a). Partisan bias and its discontents. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14, 304–316.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ditto, P. H., Liu, B. S., Clark, C. J., Wojcik, S. P., Chen, E. E., Grady, R. H., et al. (2019b). At least bias is bipartisan: A meta-analytic comparison of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14, 273–291.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dupree, C. H., & Fiske, S. T. (2019). Self-presentation in interracial settings: The competence downshift by white liberals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117, 579–604.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House Digital, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eitan, O., Viganola, D., Inbar, Y., Dreber, A., Johannesson, M., Pfeiffer, T., et al. (2018). Is research in social psychology politically biased? Systematic empirical tests and a forecasting survey to address the controversy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 188–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Everett, J. A. C., Clark, C. J., Meindl, P., Luguri, J. B., Earp, B. D., Graham, J., et al. (2021). Political differences in free will belief are associated with differences in moralization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(2), 461–483.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Finocchiaro, M. A. (2005). Retrying Galileo, 1633–1992. University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Flore, P. C., & Wicherts, J. M. (2015). Does stereotype threat influence performance of girls in stereotyped domains? A meta-analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 53(1), 25–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Forscher, P. S., Lai, C. K., Axt, J. R., Ebersole, C. R., Herman, M., Devine, P. G., & Nosek, B. A. (2019). A meta-analysis of procedures to change implicit measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(3), 522–559.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Green, J., & Karolides, N. J. (2014). Encyclopedia of censorship. Infobase Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2020). Tribalism, forbidden baserates, and the telos of social science. Psychological Inquiry, 31, 53–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasson, Y., Tamir, M., Brahms, K. S., Cohrs, J. C., & Halperin, E. (2018). Are liberals and conservatives equally motivated to feel empathy toward others? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 1449–1459.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R., & Kameda, T. (2005). The robust beauty of majority rules in group decisions. Psychological Review, 112(2), 494–508.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hertwig, R., & Gigerenzer, G. (1999). The ‘conjunction fallacy’revisited: How intelligent inferences look like reasoning errors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(4), 275–305.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honeycutt, N., & Jussim, L. (2020). A model of political bias in social science research. Psychological Inquiry, 31, 73–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inbar, Y. (2020). Unjustified generalization: An overlooked consequence of ideological bias. Psychological Inquiry, 31, 90–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inbar, Y., & Lammers, J. (2012). Political diversity in social and personality psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 496–503.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I. (1991). Groupthink. In E. Griffin (Ed.), A first look at communication theory (pp. 235–246). McGrawHill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffries, C. H., Hornsey, M. J., Sutton, R. M., Douglas, K. M., & Bain, P. G. (2012). The David and Goliath principle: Cultural, ideological, and attitudinal underpinnings of the normative protection of low-status groups from criticism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1053–1065.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524–532.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jonas, K. J., Cesario, J., Alger, M., Bailey, A. H., Bombari, D., Carney, D., et al. (2017). Power poses–where do we stand? Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology, 2(1), 139–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Nosek, B. A., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 126–136.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jussim, L., Crawford, J. T., Anglin, S. M., Chambers, J. R., Stevens, S. T., & Cohen, F. (2016). Stereotype accuracy: One of the largest and most replicable effects in all of social psychology. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 31–63). Taylor and Francis Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jussim, L., Careem, A., Honeycutt, N., & Stevens, S. T. (2020). Do IAT scores explain racial inequality? In J. P. Forgas, W. D. Crano, & K. Fiedler (Eds.), Applications of social psychology: How social psychology can contribute to the solution of real-world problems (pp. 312–333). Taylor and Francis.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1996). On the reality of cognitive illusions. Psychological Review, 103, 582–591.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, E. (2021). Academic freedom in crisis: Punishment, political discrimination, and self-censorship. Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, 2, 1–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinder, D. R., & Sears, D. O. (1981). Prejudice and politics: Symbolic racism versus racial threats to the good life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(3), 414–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, J. J. (1993). The influence of prior beliefs on scientific judgments of evidence quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56, 28–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kteily, N. S., Rocklage, M. D., McClanahan, K., & Ho, A. K. (2019). Political ideology shapes the amplification of the accomplishments of disadvantaged vs. advantaged group members. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 1559–1568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, C. K. (2020). Ordinary claims require ordinary evidence: A lack of direct support for equalitarian bias in the social sciences. Psychological Inquiry, 31, 42–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langbert, M. (2018). Homogenous: The political affiliations of elite liberal arts college faculty. Academic Questions, 31(2), 186–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 255–275.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lewandowsky, S., Woike, J. K., & Oberauer, K. (2020). Genesis or evolution of gender differences? Worldview-based dilemmas in the processing of scientific information. Journal of Cognition, 3(1), 9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, B. J., & Kteily, N. S. (2018). (Anti-)egalitarianism differentially predicts empathy for members of advantaged versus disadvantaged groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114, 665–692.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, M. J. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 161–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellers, B., Hertwig, R., & Kahneman, D. (2001). Do frequency representations eliminate conjunction effects? An exercise in adversarial collaboration. Psychological Science, 12(4), 269–275.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1942/1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, P. G., & Tetlock, P. E. (2021). Stretching the limits of science: Was the implicit-bias debate social psychology’s bridge too far? In J. Krosnick et al. (Eds.), Implicit bias theory and research. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Sriram, N., Lindner, N. M., Devos, T., Ayala, A., et al. (2009). National differences in gender–science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(26), 10593–10597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nosek, B. A., Hardwicke, T. E., Moshontz, H., Allard, A., Corker, K. S., Almenberg, A. D., et al. (2021). Replicability, robustness, and reproducibility in psychological science. Unpublished manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oswald, F. L., Mitchell, G., Blanton, H., Jaccard, J., & Tetlock, P. E. (2013). Predicting ethnic and racial discrimination: A meta-analysis of IAT criterion studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(2), 171–192.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oswald, F. L., Mitchell, G., Blanton, H., Jaccard, J., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). Using the IAT to predict ethnic and racial discrimination: Small effect sizes of unknown societal significance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 562–571.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, U., Honeycutt, N., Block, A. D., & Jussim, L. (2020). Ideological diversity, hostility, and discrimination in philosophy. Philosophical Psychology, 33, 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, S. (2018). Enlightenment now: The case for reason, science, humanism, and progress. Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pursur, H., & Harper, C. (2020). Low system justification drives ideological differences in joke perception: A critical commentary and re-analysis of Baltiansky et al. (2020). Unpublished manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redding, R. E. (2001). Sociopolitical diversity in psychology: The case for pluralism. American Psychologist, 56(3), 205–215.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rienzo, C., Rolfe, H., & Wilkinson, D. (2015). Changing mindsets: Evaluation report and executive summary. Education Endowment Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, S. (2020). Science fictions: How fraud, bias, negligence, and hype undermine the search for truth. Metropolitan Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothman, S., Lichter, S. R., & Nevitte, N. (2005). Politics and professional advancement among college faculty. The Forum, 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satopää, V. A., Salikhov, M., Tetlock, P. E., & Mellers, B. (2021). Bias, information, noise: The BIN model of forecasting. Management Science, 67, 7599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shewach, O. R., Sackett, P. R., & Quint, S. (2019). Stereotype threat effects in settings with features likely versus unlikely in operational test settings: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(12), 1514–1534.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, J. P., & Simonsohn, U. (2017). Power posing: P-curving the evidence. Psychological Science, 28, 687–693.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014). P-curve: A key to the file-drawer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 534–547.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Singal, J. (2021). The quick fix: Why fad psychology can’t cure our social ills. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sisk, V. F., Burgoyne, A. P., Sun, J., Butler, J. L., & Macnamara, B. N. (2018). To what extent and under which circumstances are growth mind-sets important to academic achievement? Two meta-analyses. Psychological Science, 29(4), 549–571.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sniderman, P. M., & Tetlock, P. E. (1986). Symbolic racism: Problems of motive attribution in political analysis. Journal of Social Issues, 42(2), 129–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, S. T., Jussim, L., & Honeycutt, N. (2020). Scholarship suppression: Theoretical perspectives and emerging trends. Societies, 10(4), 82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart-Williams, S., Thomas, A., Blackburn, J. D., & Chan, C. Y. M. (2020). Reactions to male-favoring vs. female-favoring sex differences: A preregistered experiment. British Journal of Psychology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2012). Can stereotype threat explain the gender gap in mathematics performance and achievement? Review of General Psychology, 16(1), 93–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies, and nations. Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, P. E. (1994). Political psychology or politicized psychology: Is the road to scientific hell paved with good moral intentions? Political Psychology, 15, 509–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, P. E. (2012). Rational and irrational prejudices: How problematic is the ideological lopsidedness of social-personality psychology? Perspectives in Psychological Science, 7, 519–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, P. E. (2020). Gauging the politicization of research programs. Psychological Inquiry, 31, 86–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, P. E., & Mellers, B. A. (2011). Intelligent management of intelligence agencies: Beyond accountability ping-pong. American Psychologist, 66(6), 542–554.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, P. E., & Mitchell, G. (2009). Implicit bias and accountability systems: What must organizations do to prevent discrimination? Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 3–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, P. E., Kristel, O. V., Elson, S. B., Green, M. C., & Lerner, J. S. (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 853–870.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tong, K. J., & von Hippel, W. (2020). Sexual selection, history, and the evolution of tribalism. Psychological Inquiry, 31, 23–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unzueta, M. M., Everly, B. A., & Gutiérrez, A. S. (2014). Social dominance orientation moderates reactions to black and white discrimination claimants. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 81–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Bavel, J. J., Reinero, D. A., Harris, E., Robertson, C. E., & Pärnamets, P. (2020). Breaking groupthink: Why scientific identity and norms mitigate ideological epistemology. Psychological Inquiry, 31, 66–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Gelder, T., Kruger, A., Thomman, S., de Rozario, R., Silver, E., Saletta, M., et al. (2020). Improving analytic reasoning via crowdsourcing and structured analytic techniques. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 14(3), 195–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Prooijen, J. W., & Krouwel, A. P. (2019). Psychological features of extreme political ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(2), 159–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, W., & Buss, D. M. (2017). Do ideologically driven scientific agendas impede the understanding and acceptance of evolutionary principles in social psychology. In J. T. Crawford & L. Jussim (Eds.), Frontiers of social psychology series: The politics of social psychology (pp. 7–25). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winegard, B. M., & Clark, C. J. (2020). Without contraries is no progression. Psychological Inquiry, 31, 94–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winegard, B. M., Clark, C. J., Hasty, C., & Baumeister, R. F. (2018). Equalitarianism: A source of liberal bias [Unpublished manuscript]. Department of Psychology, Florida State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, J. D., Goldberg, Z., Cheung, I., & Esses, V. M. (2021). Clarifying the meaning of symbolic racism. PsyArXiv.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zmigrod, L., Rentfrow, P. J., & Robbins, T. W. (2020). The partisan mind: Is extreme political partisanship related to cognitive inflexibility? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(3), 407–418.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Cory J. Clark & Philip E. Tetlock

Authors
  1. Cory J. Clark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Philip E. Tetlock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA

    Craig L. Frisby

  2. Dale E. Fowler School of Law and Crean College of Health and Behavioral Sciences, Chapman University, Orange, CA, USA

    Richard E. Redding

  3. Department of Psychology, University of Nevada Reno, Reno, NV, USA

    William T. O'Donohue

  4. Department of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Scott O. Lilienfeld

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Clark, C.J., Tetlock, P.E. (2023). Adversarial Collaboration: The Next Science Reform. In: Frisby, C.L., Redding, R.E., O'Donohue, W.T., Lilienfeld, S.O. (eds) Ideological and Political Bias in Psychology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29148-7_32

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation