Critics have suggested that psychological research is characterized by a pervasive liberal bias, and this problem may be particularly acute in research on issues related to public policy. In this article, I consider the sources of bias in basic and applied research in the evaluation, conduct, and communication of research. Techniques are suggested for counteracting bias at each of these stages.
BaumeisterR. F. (2015). Recognizing and coping with our own prejudices: Fighting liberal biases without conservative input. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, 15–16.
4.
BlumingA.TavrisC. (2018). Estrogen matters. New York, NY: Little, Brown Spark.
5.
BrabtM. J.ProulxT. (2015). QTIPs: Questionable theoretical and interpretive practices in social psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, 19–20.
6.
CampbellD. T.StanleyJ. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
7.
ChamberlinT. C. (1965). The method of multiple working hypotheses. Science, 148, 754–759. (Reprinted from Science [old series] 15, 92, 1890)
8.
DavisR. E.Giner-SorollaR.LindsayD. S.LougheedJ. P.MakelM. C.MeierM. E.. . . ZelenskiJ. M. (2018). Peer-review guidelines promoting replicability and transparency in psychological science. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1, 556–573.
9.
DuarteJ. L.CrawfordJ. T.SternC.HaidtJ.JussimL.TetlockP. E. (2015). Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, 1–13.
10.
EaglyA. H. (2016). When passionate advocates meet research on diversity, does the honest broker stand a chance?Journal of Social Issues, 72, 199–222.
11.
EllsworthP. C. (1989). Are twelve heads better than one?Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 205–224.
12.
EllsworthP. C. (1991). Some implications of cognitive appraisal theories of emotion. In StrongmanK. T. (Ed.), International review of studies of emotion (pp. 148–161). New York, NT: John Wiley.
13.
EllsworthP. C.RossL. D. (1983). Public opinion and capital punishment: A close examination of the views of abolitionists and retentionists. Crime and Delinquency, 29, 116–169.
GawandeA. (2009). The checklist manifesto. New York, NY: Picador.
16.
GilovichT.RossL. (2015). The wisest one in the room: How you can benefit from psychology’s most powerful insights. New York, NY: Free Press.
17.
GouldS. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man (Rev. exp. ed.). New York, NY: Norton.
18.
GreenwoodD. C.FreemanJ. V. (2015). How to spot a statistical problem: Advice for a non-statistical reviewer. BMC Medicine, 13, Article 270. doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0510-5
19.
HammondK. R.HarveyL. O.Jr.HastieR. (1992). Making better use of scientific knowledge: Separating truth from justice. Psychological Science, 3, 80–87.
20.
HansV. P.VidmarN. (1986). Judging the jury. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media.
21.
HastieR.PenrodS. D.PenningtonN. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22.
HeadM.HolmanL.LanfearR.KahnA. T.JennionsM. D. (2015). The extent and consequences of p-hacking in science. PLOS Biology, 13(3), Article e1002106. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002106
23.
IoannidisJ. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Med, 2(8), Article e124. doi:10.1371/s13428-015-0578-z
24.
KahanD.PetersE.DawsonE. C.SlovicP. (2017). Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. Behavioural Public Policy, 1, 54–86.
25.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Strauss, & Giroux.
26.
KerrN. L. (1998). HARKing (hypothesizing after the results are known). Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 196–217.
27.
LoftusE. (1996). Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
LordC. G.RossL.LepperM. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098–2109.
29.
LupiaA. (2016). Uninformed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
30.
MacCounR. J. (1998). Biases in the interpretation and use of research results. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 259–287.
31.
MellersB.HertwigR.KahnemanD. (2001). Do frequency representations eliminate conjunction effects? An exercise in adversarial collaboration. Psychological Science, 4, 269–275.
32.
MillerG. A. (1969). Psychology as a means of promoting human welfare. American Psychologist, 24, 1063–1010.
NickersonR. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220.
35.
NosekB.LakensD. (2014). Registered reports: A method to increase the credibility of published results. Social Psychology, 45, 37–41.
36.
PashlerH.WagenmakersE.-J. (Eds.). (2012). Replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence? [Special section]. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 528–654.
PielkeR. A.Jr. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
39.
Plato. (1987). Gorgias (ZeylD. J. Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
40.
PlattJ. R. (1964). Strong inference. Science, 146, 347–353.
41.
PopperK. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York, NY: Routledge.
42.
RossL. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173–220). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
43.
RossL.WardA. (1996). Naïve realism in everyday life: Implications for social conflict and misunderstanding. In BrownT.TurielE. (Eds.), Values and knowledge (pp. 103–135). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
44.
RossL. D.NisbettR. E. (1991). The person and the situation. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
45.
SaksM. J. (1977). Jury verdicts: The role of group size and decision rule. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
46.
StrohmingerN.NicholsS. (2015). Neurodegeneration and identity. Psychological Science, 26, 1469–1479.
47.
TavrisC. (1992). The mismeasure of woman. New York, NY: Touchstone.
48.
TetlockP. E. (1994). Political psychology or politicized psychology: Is the road to scientific hell paved with good moral intentions?Political Psychology, 11, 504–529.
49.
TyburJ. M.NavaretteC. D. (2015). When theory trumps ideology: Lessons from evolutionary psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, 40–41.
50.
Van der VossenB. (2015). Diversity or depoliticization?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, 41–42.
51.
WashburnA. N.MorganG. S.SkitkaL. J. (2015). A checklist to facilitate objective hypothesis testing in social psychology research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, 42–43.
