Sociopolitical diversity in psychology: The case for pluralism.

Redding, Richard E.

doi:10.1037/0003-066x.56.3.205

Cited by 188 publications

(194 citation statements)

References 97 publications

(123 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

185

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Organizations such as the APA could play a critical role in changing the zeitgeist. To do so will not be easy, for it requires overcoming deeply ingrained biases that operate at several levels of the APA (Redding, 2001). The standard models of social science from the 1930s to the present have assumed a tabula rasa perspective that precludes any analysis of hereditary group differences.…”

Section: Educational Vocational and Psychological Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability.

Rushton¹,

Jensen²

2005

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

376

405

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The culture-only (0% genetic-100% environmental) and the hereditarian (50% genetic-50% environmental) models of the causes of mean Black-White differences in cognitive ability are compared and contrasted across 10 categories of evidence: the worldwide distribution of test scores, g factor of mental ability, heritability, brain size and cognitive ability, transracial adoption, racial admixture, regression, related life-history traits, human origins research, and hypothesized environmental variables. The new evidence reviewed here points to some genetic component in Black-White differences in mean IQ. The implication for public policy is that the discrimination model (i.e., Black-White differences in socially valued outcomes will be equal barring discrimination) must be tempered by a distributional model (i.e., Black-White outcomes reflect underlying group characteristics). Section 1: BackgroundThroughout the history of psychology, no question has been so persistent or so resistant to resolution as that of the relative roles of nature and nurture in causing individual and group differences in cognitive ability (Degler, 1991;Loehlin, Lindzey, & Spuhler, 1975). The scientific debate goes back to the mid-19th century (e.g., Galton, 1869;Nott & Glidden, 1854). Starting with the widespread use of standardized mental tests in World War I, average ethnic and racial group differences were found. Especially vexing has been the cause(s) of the 15-point Black-White IQ difference in the United States.In 1969, the Harvard Educational Review published Arthur Jensen's lengthy article, "How Much Can We Boost IQ and School Achievement?" Jensen concluded that (a) IQ tests measure socially relevant general ability; (b) individual differences in IQ have a high heritability, at least for the White populations of the United States and Europe; (c) compensatory educational programs have proved generally ineffective in raising the IQs or school achievement of individuals or groups; (d) because social mobility is linked to ability, social class differences in IQ probably have an appreciable genetic component; and tentatively, but most controversially, (e) the mean Black-White group difference in IQ probably has some genetic component. Jensen's (1969) article was covered in Time, Newsweek, Life, U.S. News & World Report, and New York Times Magazine. His conclusions, the theoretical issues they raised, and the public policy recommendations that many saw as stemming directly from them were dubbed "Jensenism," a term which entered the J. Philippe Rushton, Department of Psychology, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada; Arthur R. Jensen, School of Education, University of California, Berkeley.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to J. Philippe Rushton, Department of Psychology, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6A 5C2, Canada. E-mail: rushton@uwo.ca Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2005, Vol. 11, No. 2, 235-294 Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association 1076-8971/0...

show abstract

Section: Educational Vocational and Psychological Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability.

Rushton¹,

Jensen²

2005

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

376

405

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The challenge, he said, is to combine the two approaches so as to produce an interpretation of the way a people lives which is neither imprisoned within their mental horizons, an ethnography of witchcraft as written by a witch, nor systematically deaf to the distinctive tonalities of their existence, an ethnography of witchcraft as written by a geometer. (Geertz, 1984, p. 125) Psychologists, being among the most politically liberal of academic fields (Redding, 2001), are at special risk for producing studies of conservatives that are "deaf to the distinct tonalities of their existence. "…”

Section: Conclusion: Multilevel Understanding and Empathymentioning

confidence: 99%

Above and Below Left–Right: Ideological Narratives and Moral Foundations

Haidt¹,

Graham²,

Joseph³

2009

Psychological Inquiry

365

333

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…L. Martin, 2001;Ray, 1988). The psychological study of ideological conservatism is one that invites controversy (e.g., Redding, 2001;Sears, 1994;Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, 1996;Sniderman & Tetlock, 1986;Tetlock, 1994;Tetlock & Mitchell, 1993), but this circumstance does not mean that researchers should avoid it. Our view is that it is a legitimate empirical issue whether there are demonstrable links between a clearly defined set of psychological needs, motives, and properties and the adoption of politically conservative attitudes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.

Jost¹,

Glaser²,

Kruglanski³

et al. 2003

Psychological Bulletin

3,829

247

3,256

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism, dogmatism-intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure, regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification). A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r ϭ .50); system instability (.47); dogmatism-intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (-.32); uncertainty tolerance (-.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (-.20); fear of threat and loss (.18); and self-esteem (-.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat.Conservatism is a demanding mistress and is giving me a migraine.-George F. Will, BuntsFor more than half a century, psychologists have been tracking the hypothesis that different psychological motives and tendencies underlie ideological differences between the political left and the right. The practice of singling out political conservatives for special study began with Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford's (1950) landmark study of authoritarianism and the fascist potential in personality. An asymmetrical focus on right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) was criticized heavily on theoretical and methodological grounds (e.g., Christie, 1954;Eysenck, 1954;Rokeach, 1960;Shils, 1954), but it has withstood the relentless tests of time and empirical scrutiny (e.g., Altemeyer, 1981Altemeyer, , 1988Altemeyer, , 1996Altemeyer, , 1998Billig, 1984;Brown, 1965;Christie, 1991;Elms, 1969;Sidanius, 1985;W. F. Stone, 1980;W. F. Stone, Lederer, & Christie, 1993;Tetlock, 1984;Wilson, 1973c). A voluminous literature, which we review here, facilitates the comparison of cognitive styles and motivational needs of political conservatives with those of moderates, liberals, radicals, and left-wingers. In addition to classic and contemporary approaches to authoritarianism, we cover less obvious sources of theory and research on individual differences associated with dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, uncertainty avoidance, need for cognitive closure, and social dominance orientation (SDO) insofar as each of these psychological variables contributes to a deeper and more nuanced understanding of political conservatism.The study of authoritarianism and other personality theories of political attitudes is often dismissed a priori as an illegitimate, value-laden attempt to correlate general psychological profiles with specific ideological beliefs (e.g., Durrheim, 1997; J. L. Martin, 2001;Ray, 1988). The psychological study of ideological conservatism is one that invites controversy (e.g., Redding, 2001;Sears, 1994;Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, 1996;Sniderman & Tetlock, 1986;Tetlock, 1994;Tetlock & Mitchell,...

show abstract

Sociopolitical diversity in psychology: The case for pluralism.

Cited by 188 publications

References 97 publications

Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability.

Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability.

Above and Below Left–Right: Ideological Narratives and Moral Foundations

Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About