An Insufficiently Substantiated Claim Based on a Confirmation Strategy: Comment on Bartels’ “Indoctrination in Introduction to Psychology”

IF 1.9 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychology Learning and Teaching-PLAT Pub Date : 2023-08-18 DOI:10.1177/14757257231195343
F. Ermark, H. Plessner
{"title":"An Insufficiently Substantiated Claim Based on a Confirmation Strategy: Comment on Bartels’ “Indoctrination in Introduction to Psychology”","authors":"F. Ermark, H. Plessner","doi":"10.1177/14757257231195343","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In his target article on “Indoctrination in Introduction to Psychology,” Bartels proposes that in introductory textbooks of psychology studies and their results are systematically presented in such a way that they tend to correspond to left-liberal political positions and that the state of psychological knowledge is reflected in a correspondingly distorted way. In our commentary, we clarify that the evidence Bartels presents for this claim is insufficient. At first, he takes a purely hypothesis-confirming approach based on selective sampling. Second, he draws an invalid causal inference from a supposed liberal majority in the psychological community to their representation of psychological content in textbooks. And third, he assigns introductory textbooks a function that we believe they do not have. Nonetheless, we welcome the discussion of how best to teach critical reflective thinking in psychology courses.","PeriodicalId":45061,"journal":{"name":"Psychology Learning and Teaching-PLAT","volume":"77 1","pages":"273 - 278"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-18","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/10.1177/14757257231195343","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

In his target article on “Indoctrination in Introduction to Psychology,” Bartels proposes that in introductory textbooks of psychology studies and their results are systematically presented in such a way that they tend to correspond to left-liberal political positions and that the state of psychological knowledge is reflected in a correspondingly distorted way. In our commentary, we clarify that the evidence Bartels presents for this claim is insufficient. At first, he takes a purely hypothesis-confirming approach based on selective sampling. Second, he draws an invalid causal inference from a supposed liberal majority in the psychological community to their representation of psychological content in textbooks. And third, he assigns introductory textbooks a function that we believe they do not have. Nonetheless, we welcome the discussion of how best to teach critical reflective thinking in psychology courses.
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
基于确认策略的不充分证据主张——评巴特尔斯的“心理学导论中的灌输”
在他的目标文章“心理学入门中的灌输”中,巴特尔斯提出,在心理学研究的入门教科书中,它们的结果是以一种系统的方式呈现的,这种方式往往与左翼自由主义的政治立场相对应,心理学知识的状态以一种相应地扭曲的方式反映出来。在我们的评论中,我们澄清巴特尔斯提出的这一说法的证据是不充分的。首先,他采取了一种基于选择性抽样的纯粹假设确认方法。其次,他从心理学界假定的自由派多数派对教科书中心理学内容的表述得出了一个无效的因果推论。第三,他赋予了介绍性教科书一个我们认为它们不具备的功能。尽管如此,我们欢迎讨论如何在心理学课程中最好地教授批判性反思性思维。
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