Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why so Few Conservatives and Should we Care?

  • Symposium: Liberals and Conservatives in Academia
  • Published:
Society Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We take mild issue with some of the conclusions Gross draws from his research into the political commitments of academics, and we draw attention to other research that suggests there are epistemic costs associated with the political imbalance that Gross observes. We question whether incentives and controls currently existing within the social sciences are sufficient to counter these epistemic costs.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Further Reading

  • 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 

  • Bedeian, A. G., Van Fleet, D. D., & Hyman, H. H. 2009. “Circle the wagons and defend the faith” Slicing and dicing the data. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 276–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D. 1973. The coming of the post-industrial society. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boring, E. G. 1964. Cognitive dissonance: Its use in science. Science, 145(3633), 680–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budden, A. E., Tregenza, T., Aarssen, L. W., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R., & Lortie, C. J. 2008. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23, 4–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ceci, S. J., & Peters, D. 1982. Peer review: A study of reliability. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 14, 44–48.

  • Ceci, S. J., & Peters, D. 1984. How blind is blind review? American Psychologist, 39, 1491–1494.

  • 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 

  • Daly, B. 2009. Priestly celibacy: The obligations of continence and celibacy for priests. COMPASS: A Review of Topical Theology, 33, 20–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, J. M., Anderson, E. E., Gibb, T., Carroll, K., Kraus, E., Rubbelke, T., & Vasher, M. 2012. Environmental factors contributing to wrongdoing in medicine: A criterion-based review of studies and cases. Ethics & Behavior, 22, 163–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. 1981. Sex of researchers and sex-typed communications as determinants of sex differences in influenceability: a meta-analysis of social influence studies. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faust, D. 1984. The limits of scientific reasoning. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, J. 2011. The myth of the rational market. New York: HarperBusiness.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A. G. 2012. Scientists are human: Implicit cognition and researcher conflict of interest. In R. W. Proctor & E. J. Capaldi (Eds.), Psychology of science: Implicit and explicit processes (pp. 255–266). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A. G., & Krieger, L. H. 2006. Implicit bias: Scientific foundations. California Law Review, 94, 945–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross, N. 2013. Why are professors liberal and why do conservatives care? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J., & Graham, J. 2009. The planet of the Durkheimians, where community, authority and sacredness are foundations of morality. In J. T. Jost, A. C. Kay, & H. Thorisdottir (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 371–401). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, P. A. 2012. Notre Trahison des Clercs: Implicit aspirations—explicit explorations. In R. W. Proctor & E. J. Capaldi (Eds.), Psychology of science: Implicit and explicit processes (pp. 479–495). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, S. 2011. The moral landscape: How science can determine human values. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herndon, T., Ash, M., & Pollin, R. 2013. Does high public debt consistently stifle economic growth?: A critique of Reinhart and Rogoff. Political Economy Research Institute, available at: http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/working_papers_301-350/WP322.pdf.

  • Hull, D. L. 1988. Science as a process: an evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, M. 1999. The new know-nothings: The political foes of the scientific study of human nature. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Napier, J. L., Thorisdottir, H., Gosling, S. D., Palfai, T. P.,& Ostafin, B. 2007. Are needs to manage uncertainty and threat associated with political conservatism or ideological extremity? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 989–1007.

  • Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. 2003. Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.

  • Kabat, G. C. 2008. Hyping health risks: Environmental hazards in daily life and the science of epidemiology. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, J. 1993. The influence of prior beliefs on scientific judgments of evidence quality. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 56, 28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koertge, N. (Ed.). 1998. A house built on sand: Exposing postmodernist myths about science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunda, Z., & Thagard, P. 1996. Forming impressions from stereotypes, traits, and behaviors: A parallel-constraint-satisfaction theory. Psychological Review, 103, 284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lilienfeld, S. O. 2002. When worlds collide: Social science, politics, and the Rind et al. (1998) child sexual abuse meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 57, 176–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lilienfeld, S. O. 2010. Can psychology become a science? Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 281–288.

  • Lilienfeld, S. O. 2012. Public skepticism of psychology: Why many people perceive the study of human behavior as unscientific. American Psychologist, 67, 111–129.

  • Lilienfeld, S. O., Ammirati, R., & Landfield, K. 2009. Giving debiasing away: Can psychological research on correcting cognitive errors promote human welfare? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 390–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, M. J. 1976. Scientist as subject: The psychological imperative. Cambridge, MA: Ballenger Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, M. J. 1987. Scientific publication and knowledge politics. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 2, 165–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Daniel, H. D., & O’Mara, A. 2009. Gender effects in the peer reviews of grant proposals: A comprehensive meta-analysis comparing traditional and multilevel approaches. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1290–1326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medvedev, Z. A. 1978. Soviet science. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. 1942. Science and technology in a democratic order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1, 115–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitroff, I. I. 1974. The subjective side of science: A philosophical inquiry into the psychology of the Apollo moon scientists. New York: American Elsevier Pub. Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitroff, I. I. 1980. Reality as a scientific strategy: Revising our concepts of science. Academy of Management Review, 5, 513–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mooney, C. 2006. The Republican war on science. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson, R. S. 1998. Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175.

    Article  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, 171–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollin, R., & Ash, M. 2013. Debt and growth: A response to Reinhart and Rogoff, New York Times, April 29, available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/opinion/debt-and-growth-a-response-to-reinhart-and-rogoff.html?_r=0.

  • Primack, R. B., Ellwood, E., Miller-Rushing, A. J., Marrs, R., & Mulligan, A. 2009. Do gender, nationality, or academic age affect review decisions? An analysis of submissions to the journal Biological Conservation. Biological Conservation, 142, 2415–2418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. 2006. Why science matters: Understanding the methods of psychological research. Maldin, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Quillian, L. 2006. New approaches to understanding racial prejudice and discrimination. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 299–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roiphe, R. 2006. The Most Dangerous Profession. Connecticut Law Review, 39, 603–665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, J. S., Gross, C. P., Desai, M. M., Hong, Y., Grant, A. O., Daniels, S. R., & Krumholz, H. M. 2006. Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association, 295, 1675–1680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, C. J., Settoon, R. P., McGrath, R. N., Blanton, A. E., Kidwell, R. E., Lohrke, F. T., & Danforth, G. W. 1994. Investigator characteristics as moderators of personnel selection research: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 163–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, K. W. 2013. Thoughts about celibacy. The Priest.

  • Self, W. T., Mitchell, G., Tetlock, P. E., Mellers, B. A., & Hildreth, A. D. 2014. Calibrating process and outcome accountability systems to workplaces. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Sherwood, J. J., & Nataupsky, M. 1968. Predicting the conclusions of negro-white intelligence research from biographical characteristics of the investigator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 53–58.

  • Singletary, S. L., & Hebl, M. R. 2009. Compensatory strategies for reducing interpersonal discrimination: The effectiveness of acknowledgments, increased positivity, and individuating information. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skitka, L. J. 2012. Multifaceted problems: Liberal bias and the need for scientific rigor in self-critical research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 508–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slife, B. D., & Williams, R. N. 1995. What’s behind the research? Discovering hidden assumptions in the behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, M. 1992. Scientific rationality and human reasoning. Philosophy of Science, 59, 439–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, P. E., & Mitchell, G. 1993. Liberal and conservative approaches to justice: Conflicting psychological portraits. In B. A. Mellers & J. Baron (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on justice: Theory and applications (pp. 234–255). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  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 

  • Thórisdóttir, H., & Jost, J. T. 2011. Motivated closed-mindedness mediates the effect of threat on political conservatism. Political Psychology, 32, 785–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viner, N., Powell, P., & Green, R. 2004. Institutionalized biases in the award of research grants: a preliminary analysis revisiting the principle of accumulative advantage. Research Policy, 33, 443–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wennerås, C., & Wold, A. 1997. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature, 387(6631), 341–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wessely, S. 1998. Peer review of grant applications: What do we know? The Lancet, 352(9124), 301–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wetherell, G. A., Brandt, M. J., & Reyna, C. 2013. Discrimination across the ideological divide: The role of value violations and abstract values in discrimination by liberals and conservatives. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 658–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky, H. L. 1964. The professionalization of everyone? American Journal of Sociology, 70, 137–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, J. 1995. Of one mind: The collectivization of science. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, J. 2000. Real science: What it is and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Solomon Labs, University of Pennsylvania, 3720 Walnut St, Room C8, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    Philip E. Tetlock & Gregory Mitchell

Authors
  1. Philip E. Tetlock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gregory Mitchell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philip E. Tetlock.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tetlock, P.E., Mitchell, G. Why so Few Conservatives and Should we Care?. Soc 52, 28–34 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-014-9850-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-014-9850-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation