Exploring the Great Schism in the Social Sciences: Confirmation Bias and the Interpretation of Results Relating to Biological Influences on Human Behavior and Psychology

Abstract

The nature-nurture debate is one that biologists often dismiss as a false dichotomy, as all phenotypic traits are the results of complex processes of gene and environment interactions. However, such dismissiveness belies the ongoing debate that is unmistakable throughout the biological and social sciences concerning the role of biological influences in the development of psychological and behavioral traits in humans. Many have proposed that this debate is due to ideologically driven biases in the interpretation of results. Those favoring biological approaches have been accused of a greater willingness to accept biological explanations so as to rationalize or justify the status quo of inequality. Those rejecting biological approaches have been accused of an unwillingness to accept biological explanations so as to attribute inequalities solely to social and institutional factors, ultimately allowing for the possibility of social equality. While it is important to continue to investigate this topic through further research and debate, another approach is to examine the degree to which the allegations of bias are indeed valid. To accomplish this, a convenience sample of individuals with relevant postgraduate degrees was recruited from Mechanical Turk and social media. Participants were asked to rate the inferential power of different research designs and of mock results that varied in the degree to which they supported different ideologies. Results were suggestive that researchers harbor sincere differences of opinion concerning the inferential value of relevant research. There was no suggestion that ideological confirmation biases drive these differences. However, challenges associated with recruiting a large enough sample of experts as well as identifying believable mock scenarios limit the study's inferential scope.

Navigating the theoretical landscape of loneliness research: How interdisciplinary synergy contributes to further conceptualizations

“…Meanwhile, research on cross‐cultural differences in psychological and social phenomena has progressively gathered momentum. Nevertheless, cultural influences cannot be easily separated from an individual's biological make‐up because they are inextricably related (Winking, 2018). During adolescence, this mutual relationship strengthens due to synaptic pruning, which is responsible for the destruction of rarely used brain connections in favor of highly necessary ones (Petersen, 2017).…”

Untitled

“…Even scientists, who practice data-driven thinking for a living, are prone to the influences described in this article and are often unconvinced by System 2 arguments. 126 For example, when scientists receive data inconsistent with their hypotheses, they are likely to generate alternative explanations for that data. 127 In other words, they, in the same manner as nonscientists reasoning about things they believe, are motivated to retain their well-thoughtout, though unsupported, hypotheses.…”

A new phylogenetic protocol: Dealing with model misspecification and confirmation bias in molecular phylogenetics

“…This tendency—allow prior expectations to influence the interpretation of phylogenetic estimates—is called confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is not discussed in phylogenetics, even though it is well recognized as a critical factor in other disciplines (e.g., psychology and social science (121)), so it is timely that the phylogenetic community takes onboard the serious implications of this.…”