Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T07:51:29.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political diversity will improve social psychological science1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2014

José L. Duarte ,
Jarret T. Crawford ,
Charlotta Stern ,
Jonathan Haidt ,
Lee Jussim  and
Philip E. Tetlock
José L. Duarte
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ [email protected]://joseduarte.com
Jarret T. Crawford
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, The College of New Jersey, Ewing, NJ [email protected]://crawford.pages.tcnj.edu/
Charlotta Stern
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Institute for Social Research, Stockholm University, SE-10691 Stockholm, [email protected]://www2.sofi.su.se/~lst/
Jonathan Haidt
Affiliation:
Stern School of Business, New York University, New York, NY [email protected]://www.stern.nyu.edu/faculty/bio/jonathan-haidt
Lee Jussim
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ [email protected]/~jussim/
Philip E. Tetlock
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA [email protected]://www.sas.upenn.edu/tetlock/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Psychologists have demonstrated the value of diversity – particularly diversity of viewpoints – for enhancing creativity, discovery, and problem solving. But one key type of viewpoint diversity is lacking in academic psychology in general and social psychology in particular: political diversity. This article reviews the available evidence and finds support for four claims: (1) Academic psychology once had considerable political diversity, but has lost nearly all of it in the last 50 years. (2) This lack of political diversity can undermine the validity of social psychological science via mechanisms such as the embedding of liberal values into research questions and methods, steering researchers away from important but politically unpalatable research topics, and producing conclusions that mischaracterize liberals and conservatives alike. (3) Increased political diversity would improve social psychological science by reducing the impact of bias mechanisms such as confirmation bias, and by empowering dissenting minorities to improve the quality of the majority's thinking. (4) The underrepresentation of non-liberals in social psychology is most likely due to a combination of self-selection, hostile climate, and discrimination. We close with recommendations for increasing political diversity in social psychology.

Keywords

academic biasacademic diversityconfirmation biasdiscriminationopen sciencepolitical psychologysocial psychology
Type
Target Article
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 38 , 2015 , e130
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1.

All authors contributed heavily and are listed in reverse order of career seniority.

References

Abramowitz, A. I. (2010) The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization, and American democracy. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Abramowitz, S. I., Gomes, B. & Abramowitz, C. V. (1975) Publish or politic: Referee bias in manuscript review. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 5(3):187–200. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1975.tb00675.x.Google Scholar
Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J. & Sanford, R. N. (1950) The authoritarian personality. Harper.Google Scholar
Akrami, N., Ekehammar, B. & Bergh, R. (2011) Generalized prejudice: Common and specific components. Psychological Science 22(1):57–59.Google Scholar
Alberts, B. (2013) Trouble at the lab. The Economist, October 19, 2013. Available at: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble Google Scholar
Allport, G. W. (1954) The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Altemeyer, B. (1996) The authoritarian specter. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Altemeyer, B. (1998) The other “authoritarian personality.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 30:47–92.Google Scholar
American Psychological Association. (2005) APA presidential task force on enhancing diversity. Available at: http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/taskforce-report.pdf Google Scholar
American Psychological Association. (2009) Strategic plan. Available at: http://www.apa.org/about/apa/strategic-plan/ Google Scholar
American Psychological Association. (2013) Coburn amendment restricts NSF political science funding. Available at: http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/04/political-science-funding.aspx.Google Scholar
Astin, A. W. (1993) What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Baars, B. J. (1986) The cognitive revolution in psychology. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Barber, M. & McCarty, N. (2013) Causes and consequences of polarization. In: Negotiating agreement in politics, ed. Mansbridge, J. & Martin, C. J., pp. 19–53. American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Bielby, W. (2013) Minority vulnerability in privileged occupations. American Academy of Political and Social Science 639:12–31.Google Scholar
Brandt, M. J., Reyna, C., Chambers, J. R., Crawford, J. T. & Wetherell, G. (2014) The ideological-conflict hypothesis: Intolerance among both liberals and conservatives. Current Directions in Psychological Science 23(1):27–34.Google Scholar
Byrne, D. (1969) Attitudes and attraction. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 4:35–89.Google Scholar
Cannella, A. A., Park, J. H. & Lee, H. U. (2008) Top management team functional background diversity and firm performance: Examining the roles of team member collocation and environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal 51(4):768–84.Google Scholar
Carl, N. (2014) Verbal intelligence is correlated with socially and economically liberal beliefs. Intelligence 44:142–48.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(9):994–1002.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. R., Schlenker, B. R. & Collisson, B. (2013) Ideology and prejudice: The role of value conflicts. Psychological Science 24(2):140–49.Google Scholar
Clark, C. F., Kotchen, M. J. & Moore, M. R. (2003) Internal and external influences on pro-environmental behavior: Participation in a green electricity program. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23:237–46.Google Scholar
Crano, W. D. (2012) The rules of influence: Winning when you are in the minority. St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Crawford, J. T. (2012) The ideologically objectionable premise model: Predicting biased political judgments on the left and right. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48(1):138–51.Google Scholar
Crawford, J. T., Modri, S. A. & Motyl, M. (2013) Bleeding-heart liberals and hard-hearted conservatives: Subtle political dehumanization through differential attributions of human nature and human uniqueness traits. Journal of Social and Political Psychology 1(1):86–104. doi:10.5964/jspp.v1i1.184 Google Scholar
Crawford, J. T. & Pilanski, J. M. (2014) Political intolerance, right and left. Political Psychology 35(6):841–51. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00926.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, J. T. & Xhambazi, E. (2015) Predicting political biases against the Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party movements. Political Psychology 36(1):111–21. doi:10.1111/pops.12054.Google Scholar
Crisp, R. J. & Turner, R. N. (2011) Cognitive adaptation to the experience of social and cultural diversity. Psychological Bulletin 137(2):242–66.Google Scholar
Deary, I. J., Batty, G. D. & Gale, C. R. (2008) Bright children become enlightened adults. Psychological Science 19:1–6.Google Scholar
Dey, E. L. (1997) Undergraduate political attitudes: Peer influence in changing social contexts. Journal of Higher Education 68(4):398–413.Google Scholar
Diaconis, P. (1991). Replication and Meta-Analysis in Parapsychology [Comment]. Statistical Science, 386–86.Google Scholar
Duckitt, J. (2001) A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 33:41–113.Google Scholar
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G. & Jones, R. E. (2000) Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues 56:425–42.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H. (1995) The science and politics of comparing women and men. American Psychologist 50:145–58.Google Scholar
Feldman, S. & Johnston, C. (2014) Understanding the determinants of political ideology: Implications of structural complexity. Political Psychology 35(3):337–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feygina, I., Jost, J. T. & Goldsmith, R. E. (2010) System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of “system-sanctioned change.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36(3):326–38.Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T., Harris, L. T. & Cuddy, A. J. C. (2004) Why ordinary people torture enemy prisoners. Science 306(5701):1482–83.Google Scholar
Fosse, E., Gross, N. & Ma, J. (2011) Political bias in the graduate admissions process: A field experiment. Working Paper, Harvard University, March 2011.Google Scholar
Frimer, J. A., Gaucher, D. & Schaefer, N. K. (2014) Political conservatives' affinity for obedience to authority is loyal, not blind. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 40(9):1205–14.Google Scholar
Funder, D. C., Levine, J. M., Mackie, D. M., Morf, C. C., Sansone, C., Vazire, S. & West, S. G. (2014) Improving the dependability of research in personality and social psychology: Recommendations for research and educational practice. Personality and Social Psychology Review 18:2–12.Google Scholar
Gauchat, G. W. (2012) Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review 77(2):167–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, D. (2011) Comment on “The bright future of post-partisan social psychology,” a talk by J. Haidt. Edge, February 11, 2011. Available at: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt11/haidt11_index.html Google Scholar
Greenwald, A. G. & Krieger, L. H. (2006) Implicit bias: Scientific foundations. California Law Review 94(4):945–67.Google Scholar
Gross, N. (2013) Why are professors liberal and why do conservatives care? Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gross, N. & Simmons, S. (2007) The social and political views of American professors. Working Paper presented at a Harvard University Symposium on Professors and Their Politics, October 6, 2007.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. (2001) The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review 108(4):814–34.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. (2011) The bright future of post-partisan social psychology. Talk given at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, San Antonio, TX, January 27, 2011. Transcript available at: http://people.stern.nyu.edu/jhaidt/postpartisan.html Google Scholar
Haidt, J. (2012) The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Hardin, C. D. & Higgins, E. T. (1996) Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. In: Handbook of motivation and cognition, vol. 3: The interpersonal context, ed. Sorrentino, R. M. & Higgins, E., pp. 28–84. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Heaven, P. C., Ciarrochi, J. & Leeson, P. (2011) Cognitive ability, right-wing authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation: A five-year longitudinal study amongst adolescents. Intelligence 39(1):15–21.Google Scholar
Hibbing, J. R., Smith, K. B. & Alford, J. R. (2014) Differences in negativity bias underlie variations in political ideology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 37(3):297–350.Google Scholar
Hodson, G. & Busseri, M. A. (2012) Bright minds and dark attitudes: Lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice through right-wing ideology and low intergroup contact. Psychological Science 23(2):187–95.Google Scholar
Inbar, Y. & Lammers, J. (2012) Political diversity in social and personality psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7(5):496–503.Google Scholar
Ioannidis, J. P. (2012) Why science is not necessarily self-correcting. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7:645–54.Google Scholar
Iyer, R., Koleva, S., Graham, J., Ditto, P. & Haidt, J. (2012) Understanding libertarian morality: The psychological dispositions of self-identified libertarians. PLoS ONE 7(8):e42366. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042366 Google Scholar
Janis, I. L. (1972) Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
John, L. K., Lowenstein, G. & Prelec, D. (2012) Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science 23:524–32.Google Scholar
Jost, J. T. & Banaji, M. R. (1994) The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology 33(1):1–27.Google Scholar
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W. & Sulloway, F. J. (2003) Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin 129(3):339–75. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339.Google Scholar
Jussim, L. (2012a) Liberal privilege in academic psychology and the social sciences. Commentary on Inbar & Lammers (2012). Perspectives on Psychological Science 7(5):504–507.Google Scholar
Jussim, L. (2012b) Social perception and social reality: Why accuracy dominates bias and self-fulfilling prophecy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braham, D. (2011) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research 14(2):147–74.Google Scholar
Kang, J. & Banaji, M. R. (2006) Fair measures: A behavioral realist revision of “affirmative action.” California Law Review 94(4):1063–118.Google Scholar
Kemmelmeier, M. (2008) Is there a relationship between political orientation and cognitive ability? A test of three hypotheses in two studies. Personality and Individual Differences 45:767–72.Google Scholar
Klein, D. B. (2011) I was wrong and so are you. The Atlantic, December 2011. Available at: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/12/i-was-wrong-and-so-are-you/308713/ Google Scholar
Klein, D. B. & Stern, C. (2005) Professors and their politics. The policy views of social scientists. Critical Review 17(3–4):257–303.Google Scholar
Klein, D. B. & Stern, C. (2009) By the numbers: The ideological profile of professors. In: The politically correct university: Problems, scope, and reforms, ed. Maranto, R., Redding, R. E. & Hess, F. M., pp. 15–33. AEI Press.Google Scholar
Lamm, H. & Myers, D. G. (1978) Group-induced polarization of attitudes and behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 11:145–95.Google Scholar
Levendusky, M. (2009) The partisan sort: How liberals became Democrats and conservatives became Republicans. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
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(4):390–98.Google Scholar
Lindner, N. M. & Nosek, B. A. (2009) Alienable speech: Ideological variations in the application of free-speech principles. Political Psychology 30(1):67–92.Google Scholar
MacCoun, R. J. (1998) Biases in the interpretation and use of research results. Annual Review of Psychology 49(1):259–87. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.259.Google Scholar
Mannix, E. & Neale, M. A. (2005) What differences make a difference? Psychological Science in the Public Interest 6:31–55.Google Scholar
McCauley, C. & Stitt, C. L. (1978) An individual and quantitative measure of stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36:929–40.Google Scholar
McClintock, C. G., Spaulding, C. B. & Turner, H. A. (1965) Political orientation of academically affiliated psychologists. American Psychologist 20:211–21.Google Scholar
McCrae, R. R. (1996) Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin 120:323–37.Google Scholar
Mellers, B., Hertwig, R. & Kahneman, D. (2001) Do frequency representations eliminate conjunction effects? An exercise in adversarial collaboration. Psychological Science 12(4):269–75.Google Scholar
Menz, M. (2012) Functional top management team members: A review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management 38(1):45–80.Google Scholar
Mercier, H. & Sperber, D. (2011) Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34(2):57–74.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. (1942/1973) The normative structure of science. In: The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations, ed. Merton, R. K., pp. 223–280. University of Chicago Press. (Original work published in 1942).Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. (1859/1989) On liberty. Cambridge University Press. (Original work published in 1859).Google Scholar
Mooney, C. (2012a) Conservatism makes you happy. Salon, July 16, 2012. Available at: http://www.salon.com/2012/07/16/conservatism_makes_you_happy/ Google Scholar
Moreno, J. D. (2011) The body politic: An introduction. Theoretical and Applied Ethics 1(2):13–22.Google Scholar
Morgan, G. S., Mullen, E. & Skitka, L. J. (2010) When values and attributions collide: Liberals' and conservatives' values motivate attributions for alleged misdeeds. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36:1241–54.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. & Personnaz, B. (1980) Studies in social influence: V. Minority influence and conversion behavior in a perceptual task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 16(3):270–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, G. D., Lasane, T. P. & Leary, S. P. (2010) Political partisan prejudice: Selective distortion and weighting of evaluative categories in college admissions applications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 40(9):2434–62.Google Scholar
Napier, J. L. & Jost, J. T. (2008) Why are conservatives happier than liberals? Psychological Science 19(6):565–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nemeth, C., Brown, K. & Rogers, J. (2001) Devil's advocate versus authentic dissent: Stimulating quantity and quality. European Journal of Social Psychology 31(6):707–20.Google Scholar
Nemeth, C. J. (1995) Dissent as driving cognition, attitudes, and judgments. Social Cognition 13(3):273–91.Google Scholar
Newcomb, T. (1943) Personality and social change: Attitude formation in a student community. Dryden.Google Scholar
Nickerson, R. S. (1998) Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology 2(2):175–220.Google Scholar
Oxley, D. R., Smith, K. B., Alford, J. R., Hibbing, M. V., Miller, J. L., Scalora, M., Hatemi, P. K. & Hibbing, J. R. (2008) Political attitudes vary with physiological traits. Science 321(5896):1667–70.Google Scholar
Page, S. E. (2008) The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, school, and societies. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Perkins, D. N., Farady, M. & Bushey, B. (1991) Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In: Informal reasoning and education, ed. Perkins, D. N., Farady, M. & Bushey, B., pp. 83–105. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Peterson, B. E., Duncan, L. E. & Pang, J. S. (2002) Authoritarianism and political impoverishment: Deficits in knowledge and civic disinterest. Political Psychology 23(1):97–112.Google Scholar
Pinker, Susan (2008) The sexual paradox: Men, women, and the real gender gap. Scribner.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1959) The logic of scientific discovery. Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1968) The open society. Routledge.Google Scholar
Pronin, E., Lin, D. Y. & Ross, L. (2002) The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28(3):369–81.Google Scholar
Redding, R. E. (2001) Sociopolitical diversity in psychology: The case for pluralism. American Psychologist 56(3):205–15.Google Scholar
Redding, R. E. (2013) Politicized science. Society 50:439–46.Google Scholar
Reskin, B. (2012) The race discrimination system. Annual Review of Sociology 38:17–35.Google Scholar
Roets, A. & Van Hiel, A. (2011) Allport's prejudiced personality today: Need for closure as the motivated cognitive basis of prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science 20(6):349–54.Google Scholar
Rothman, S. & Lichter, S. R. (2008) The vanishing conservative: Is there a glass ceiling? In: The politically correct university: Problems, scope, and reforms, ed. Maranto, R., Redding, R. E. & Hess, F. M., pp. 60–76. AEI Press.Google Scholar
Rothman, S., Lichter, S. R. & Nevitte, N. (2005) Politics and professional advancement. Academic Questions 18(2):71–84. doi:10.1007/s12129-005-1008-y. Reprinted on the occasion of the award by the National Association of Scholars of the Sidney Hook Memorial Award to Stanley Rothman, 22 May 2004. Originally published online in The Forum. Available at: http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss1/art2/.Google Scholar
Ryan, C. S. (2002) Stereotype accuracy. European Review of Social Psychology 13:75–109.Google Scholar
Ryan, C. S. (2003) Stereotype accuracy. In: European Review of Social Psychology, vol. 13, ed. Stroebe, W. & Hewstone, M., pp. 75–109. Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis (UK). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10463280240000037 Google Scholar
Saad, L. (2010) In 2010 conservatives still outnumber moderates, liberals. Gallup Politics, June 25, 2010. Available at: http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-Conservatives-Outnumber-Moderates-Liberals.aspx Google Scholar
Sabin, P. (2013) The bet: Paul Ehrlich, Julian Simon, and our gamble over Earth's future. Yale University Press.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):1359–66.Google Scholar
Smith, C., ed. (2003) The secular revolution: Power, interests, and conflict in the secularization of American public life. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Sniderman, P. M. & Tetlock, P. E. (1986) Symbolic racism: Problems of motive attribution in political analysis. Journal of Social Issues 42:129–50.Google Scholar
Son Hing, L. S., Bobocel, D. R. & Zanna, M. P. (2002) Meritocracy and opposition to affirmative action: Making concessions in the face of discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83(3):493–509.Google Scholar
Son Hing, L. S., Bobocel, D. R., Zanna, M. P. & McBride, M. V. (2007) Authoritarian dynamics and unethical decision making: High social dominance orientation leaders and high right-wing authoritarianism followers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92(1):67–81.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G. & Wilson, D. (2010) Epistemic vigilance. Mind and Language 25(4):359–93.Google Scholar
Stenner, K. (2009) Three kinds of “conservatism.” Psychological Inquiry 20:142–59.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. (1983) Cognitive style and political ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45:118–26.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(3):509–29.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. (2007) Diversity paradoxes: Review of Scott Page's “The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies.” Science 316:984.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. & Mitchell, G. (1993) Liberal and conservative approaches to justice: Conflicting psychological portraits. In: Psychological perspectives on justice, ed. Mellers, B. & Baron, J., pp. 234–56. Cambridge University Press.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.Google Scholar
Triandis, H. C., Hall, E. R. & Ewen, R. B. (1965) Member heterogeneity and dyadic creativity. Human Relations 18(1):33–55.Google Scholar
Tuschman, A. (2013) Inside the conservative brain: What explains their wiring? Salon, September 15, 2013. (Online article at Salon.com). Available at: http://www.salon.com/2013/09/15/inside_the_conservative_brain_what_explains_their_wiring/ Google Scholar
Van Hiel, A., Pandelaere, M. & Duriez, B. (2004) The impact of need for closure on conservative beliefs and racism: Differential mediation by authoritarian submission and authoritarian dominance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30(7):824–37.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 Psychology and Personality Science 4(6):658–67.Google Scholar
Williams, K. Y. & O'Reilly, C. A. (1998) Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior 20:77–140.Google Scholar
Woessner, M. & Kelly-Woessner, A. (2009) Left pipeline: Why conservatives don't get doctorates. In: The politically correct university: Problems, scope, and reforms, ed. Maranto, R., Redding, R. E. & Hess, F. M., pp. 38–59. American Enterprise Institute/AEI Press.Google Scholar
Zimbardo, P. G. (2004) Does psychology make a significant difference in our lives? American Psychologist 59:339–51.Google Scholar
Zipp, J. F., & Fenwick, R. (2006) Is the academy a liberal hegemony? The political orientations and educational values of professors. Public Opinion Quarterly 70(3):30–326.Google Scholar