I am a little surprised at the result, as the data in the table was % who checked 4 or higher on 7 point scale. BUT, I am always cautious with results from such scales for lots of reasons ... (1) results can change with the verbal anchors on the scale .. what were they? I anxiously await seeing the article in print to find out (2) _sometimes_ the middle point on an odd numbered scale is interpreted by respondents as a place to check to "pass" on a question even if the survey designer meant it to be just another point along a continuum (I'm not saying that happened, just that it can happen) (3) there is research that people sometimes don't interpret the verbal anchors literally, rather they start in the mid point (we are all basically "average" right?) and then adjust slightly downward or upward depending on their evaluation of where they think they are compared to others, and, sometimes avoid the extremes of the scale simply because they are not extremists. In this case, if the lowest point on the scale was "no bias" some people MAY have avoided that because it was the most extreme point. My point is that results from these scales can shift depending on lost of these factors, and we cannot easily generalize the average verbal anchor checked back to reality easily.
Interestingly, notice that respondents thought colleagues were more biased than they were. This may be a "better than average" effect. This may also contain a regression effect. That is, numeric estimates regress inward toward scale midpoints, and, we are more uncertain when answering questions about others than ourselves. I have noticed this in my own research as have others. Conservative legislators? Do they need any more evidence to slash our budgets or impose hiring rules on us? Aside from the issue of bias (which none of US are right?) it may be possible that academics are more liberal because liberal policies are simply more correct. There is something I call the "fox news fallacy" which is that if you put two opinions on the air at the same time, it must be that we don't have any proof that either is correct .. perhaps the prior probabilities are equal. Is evolution true? One scientist versus a Bible literalist .. Oh gosh! Uniform prior probabilities? Do carbon emissions create climate change? Oh gosh, put two views on and let me decide! Perhaps there are more liberals in academics simply because we have the facts and logic. IF true, putting pressure on academics to hire more conservatives would be awful. On the other hand ... there are cases were political leanings can strongly influence how we interpret results. I am thinking about the environmental explanations for individual differences and ignoring genetics. Though, the pairing of liberal-environment with conservative-genetics can be flipped (I think it makes more sense to flip them!), as was the case when Karl Marx for instance, offered to dedicate a volume of Das Kapital to Charles Darwin. Food for thought ... ========================== John W. Kulig, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology Coordinator, University Honors Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 ========================== ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Green" <chri...@yorku.ca> To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu> Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2012 8:29:28 AM Subject: [tips] Survey finds that social psychologists admit to anti-conservative bias | Inside Higher Ed It looks like social psychology is about to become the primary site of a potentially nasty political struggle, at least in the US. A soon-to-be-published survey shows sizeable minorities of social psychologists willing to admit that a conservative perspective would make them less likely to accept a journal submission, recommend a grant proposal, or hire a job applicant. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/08/08/survey-finds-social-psychologists-admit-anti-conservative-bias How are conservative legislators likely to respond? Chris --- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ ========================== --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: ku...@mail.plymouth.edu . To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66454&n=T&l=tips&o=19561 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-19561-13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=19571 or send a blank email to leave-19571-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
