A recent study published in Perspectives on Psychological Science has found that U.S. psychology professors frequently self-censor when it comes to discussing controversial research topics. The study highlights significant disagreements and fears within the academic community regarding the discussion and research of certain sensitive subjects. Despite a broad consensus that academic freedom should be protected, many professors are hesitant to openly share their beliefs due to concerns about social and professional repercussions.
The authors of the study sought to better understand the extent and impact of self-censorship among psychology professors, particularly in light of growing concerns about academic freedom and the potential social sanctions for controversial research conclusions. Historically, conflict and competition have driven scientific progress, but excessive hostility and fear of repercussions can stifle open debate and innovation.
“Many professors (including many I had never met before) began reaching out to me to express their concern about the stifling academic climate, and I wanted to know how widespread that feeling was. Turns out, most professors support pursuit of even the most controversial conclusions and are very afraid of and resentful toward peers who aim to interfere with academic freedom and pursuit of truth,” said study author Cory J. Clark, a visiting scholar at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.
The researchers began by identifying potentially taboo research conclusions through qualitative interviews with 41 scholars who held PhDs in psychology or related fields. These interviews, conducted in early 2021, helped pinpoint topics considered controversial within the field. Using insights from these interviews, the researchers designed a comprehensive survey to quantitatively assess the beliefs and attitudes of a larger sample of psychology professors.
In late 2021, the team reached out to 4,603 psychology faculty members from the top 133 universities and psychology graduate programs in the United States, as ranked by U.S. News & World Report. The survey, which was conducted online, attracted responses from 470 professors.
Participants were asked about their beliefs regarding ten specific controversial research conclusions, their levels of self-censorship, and their attitudes towards discouraging such research. The survey also included questions about the potential social and professional repercussions professors feared if they were to express their empirical beliefs openly.
The ten controversial conclusions included:
- The tendency to engage in sexually coercive behavior likely evolved because it conferred some evolutionary advantages on men who engaged in such behavior.
- Gender biases are not the most important drivers of the under-representation of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.
- Academia discriminates against Black people in areas such as hiring, promotion, grants, and invitations to participate in colloquia and symposia.
- Biological sex is binary for the vast majority of people.
- The social sciences in the United States discriminate against conservatives in areas such as hiring, promotion, grants, and invitations to participate in colloquia and symposia.
- Racial biases are not the most important drivers of higher crime rates among Black Americans relative to White Americans.
- Men and women have different psychological characteristics because of evolution.
- Genetic differences explain a significant portion (10% or more) of the variance in intelligence test scores between races.
- Transgender identity is sometimes the product of social influence.
- Demographic diversity in the workplace often leads to worse performance.
The results revealed significant variability in beliefs about the 10 controversial conclusions. Some professors reported complete certainty in the truth of certain statements, while others were equally confident in their falsehood. For most conclusions, the average belief hovered near the midpoint, indicating a lack of consensus among the respondents. Notably, beliefs about the genetic contribution to intelligence differences and the binary nature of biological sex were among the most divisive topics.
Many professors reported engaging in self-censorship, particularly those who believed in the accuracy of the controversial conclusions. Self-censorship was associated with fears of social ostracism, being labeled with derogatory terms, and facing attacks on social media. Even tenured professors, who typically have more job security, reported similar levels of self-censorship and fear of consequences as their untenured colleagues. This finding suggests that tenure does not necessarily protect against social and reputational risks.
The majority of professors opposed suppressing research based on moral concerns, viewing such actions as illegitimate. They expressed contempt for peers who initiated petitions to retract papers on these grounds. However, the study found demographic differences in these attitudes. Younger, more left-leaning, and female faculty were generally more opposed to controversial scholarship and more supportive of actions against scholars who forwarded such conclusions. This indicates a generational and ideological divide within the academic community regarding the treatment of controversial research.
Most respondents supported the principle that scholars should be free to pursue research questions without fear of institutional punishment. They also prioritized truth over social equity when the two goals came into conflict. Nonetheless, there was significant concern about the potential harm that could arise from certain research conclusions. The majority of professors believed that only compelling evidence of harm should justify the suppression of research findings, indicating a high threshold for limiting academic freedom.
Professors expressed significant concerns about various social and professional repercussions if they were to share their controversial empirical beliefs openly. The most feared consequences included social ostracism, being attacked on social media, and being labeled with pejorative terms. Concerns about more severe consequences, such as physical violence and getting fired, were less pronounced but still present.
But the study’s findings are limited by its sample size and scope, focusing solely on U.S. psychology professors. Additionally, the sensitive nature of the topics may have led to underreporting or misrepresentation of views. The response rate, slightly over 10%, suggests that the results might not fully represent the broader population of psychology professors.
Future research could aim to replicate these findings in other disciplines and countries to provide a more comprehensive understanding of how academic self-censorship and controversial research are handled globally. Exploring methods to ensure more honest and representative responses, such as anonymous paper surveys, could also enhance the validity of future studies.
The study, “Taboos and Self-Censorship Among U.S. Psychology Professors,” was authored by Cory J. Clark, Matias Fjeldmark, Louise Lu, Roy F. Baumeister, Stephen Ceci, Komi Frey, Geoffrey Miller, Wilfred Reilly, Dianne Tice, William von Hippel, Wendy M. Williams, Bo M. Winegard, and Philip E. Tetlock.