Taboos and Self-Censorship Among U.S. Psychology Professors

Area of Science:

• Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Academic Culture

Background:

• Academic freedom and open discourse are crucial for scientific progress.
• However, certain empirical claims within psychology face significant controversy and debate.
• This can lead to polarized views among scholars regarding both the claims and their treatment.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate the extent of conflict and consensus among U.S. psychology professors.
• To examine beliefs about controversial empirical claims and how such scholarship and scholars should be treated.
• To understand the relationship between confidence in controversial claims and self-censorship.

Main Methods:

• Qualitative interviews (n=41) were conducted in 2021.
• A quantitative survey (N=470) of U.S. psychology professors was developed from interview data.
• The survey assessed beliefs on taboo conclusions and attitudes towards controversial scholarship.

Main Results:

• Profound disagreement exists regarding the truth status of 10 controversial empirical claims.
• Professors expressing higher confidence in taboo conclusions reported greater self-censorship.
• Widespread concern about social sanctions for expressing empirical beliefs was reported, affecting tenured and untenured faculty alike.
• Most professors opposed suppressing scholarship or punishing peers based on moral objections.

Conclusions:

• Significant polarization and self-censorship exist within psychology regarding controversial topics.
• Fear of social sanctions may distort the perceived scientific consensus on these issues.
• While most oppose censorship, demographic factors (age, political leaning, gender) correlate with opposition to controversial scholarship.