Psychology as Science and as Propaganda

IF 1.9 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychology Learning and Teaching-PLAT Pub Date : 2023-08-30 DOI:10.1177/14757257231195347
L. Jussim, Nathan Honeycutt
{"title":"Psychology as Science and as Propaganda","authors":"L. Jussim, Nathan Honeycutt","doi":"10.1177/14757257231195347","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The target article highlights research known to have promoted unjustified politicized claims. It also points out that, although researcher political biases might account for this, there are often alternative explanations. It then discusses areas of research in which those alternative explanations are unlikely, so that the best explanation is political bias. The target article is fundamentally correct. Nonetheless, we argue that political bias is a characteristic of the claims made in research articles rather than primarily a characteristic of scientists. Inasmuch as some claim is not wrong simply by virtue of supporting an ideological narrative, to detect politically biased research, we identify four questions to be answered. Test 0 is necessary but not sufficient to infer political bias. If Test 0 is passed, then at least one of Tests 1, 2, or 3 must also be passed. Test 0: Does the study vindicate some political narrative? Test 1: Did they misinterpret or misrepresent their results in ways that unjustifiably advance a particular politicized narrative? Test 2: Do the authors systematically ignore papers and studies inconsistent with their ideology-affirming conclusions? Test 3: Did they leap to ideology-affirming conclusions based on weak data? We close with recommendations for preventing politically biased conclusions.","PeriodicalId":45061,"journal":{"name":"Psychology Learning and Teaching-PLAT","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology Learning and Teaching-PLAT","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14757257231195347","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The target article highlights research known to have promoted unjustified politicized claims. It also points out that, although researcher political biases might account for this, there are often alternative explanations. It then discusses areas of research in which those alternative explanations are unlikely, so that the best explanation is political bias. The target article is fundamentally correct. Nonetheless, we argue that political bias is a characteristic of the claims made in research articles rather than primarily a characteristic of scientists. Inasmuch as some claim is not wrong simply by virtue of supporting an ideological narrative, to detect politically biased research, we identify four questions to be answered. Test 0 is necessary but not sufficient to infer political bias. If Test 0 is passed, then at least one of Tests 1, 2, or 3 must also be passed. Test 0: Does the study vindicate some political narrative? Test 1: Did they misinterpret or misrepresent their results in ways that unjustifiably advance a particular politicized narrative? Test 2: Do the authors systematically ignore papers and studies inconsistent with their ideology-affirming conclusions? Test 3: Did they leap to ideology-affirming conclusions based on weak data? We close with recommendations for preventing politically biased conclusions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
心理学既是科学又是宣传
目标文章强调了已知的促进不合理的政治主张的研究。它还指出,尽管研究人员的政治偏见可能解释了这一点,但通常还有其他解释。然后讨论了那些不太可能有其他解释的研究领域,因此最好的解释是政治偏见。目标文章基本上是正确的。尽管如此,我们认为政治偏见是研究文章中主张的一个特征,而不是科学家的主要特征。由于一些主张并不仅仅因为支持一种意识形态叙事而错,为了发现有政治偏见的研究,我们确定了四个需要回答的问题。测试0是必要的,但不足以推断政治偏见。如果测试0通过,则测试1、2或3中至少有一个也必须通过。测试0:这项研究是否证明了某些政治叙事的正确性?测试1:他们是否以不合理的方式曲解或歪曲了他们的结果,从而推动了一种特定的政治化叙事?测试2:作者是否系统性地忽略了与他们的意识形态肯定结论不一致的论文和研究?测试3:他们是否会根据薄弱的数据得出肯定意识形态的结论?最后,我们提出了防止政治偏见结论的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychology Learning and Teaching-PLAT
Psychology Learning and Teaching-PLAT PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
24
期刊最新文献
Applied Scenarios: Embedding Psychological Literacy in Assessment Corrigendum to: “Retrieval practice: Beneficial for all students or moderated by individual differences?” Editorial PLAT 22(3) 2023 Abstracts of recent articles published in Teaching of Psychology Abstracts of recent articles published in Teaching of Psychology
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1