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

We identify points of conflict and consensus regarding (a) controversial empirical claims and (b) normative preferences for how controversial scholarship-and scholars-should be treated. In 2021, we conducted qualitative interviews (n = 41) to generate a quantitative survey (N = 470) of U.S. psychology professors' beliefs and values. Professors strongly disagreed on the truth status of 10 candidate taboo conclusions: For each conclusion, some professors reported 100% certainty in its veracity and others 100% certainty in its falsehood. Professors more confident in the truth of the taboo conclusions reported more self-censorship, a pattern that could bias perceived scientific consensus regarding the inaccuracy of controversial conclusions. Almost all professors worried about social sanctions if they were to express their own empirical beliefs. Tenured professors reported as much self-censorship and as much fear of consequences as untenured professors, including fear of getting fired. Most professors opposed suppressing scholarship and punishing peers on the basis of moral concerns about research conclusions and reported contempt for peers who petition to retract papers on moral grounds. Younger, more left-leaning, and female faculty were generally more opposed to controversial scholarship. These results do not resolve empirical or normative disagreements among psychology professors, but they may provide an empirical context for their discussion.

Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda.

Science is among humanity's greatest achievements, yet scientific censorship is rarely studied empirically. We explore the social, psychological, and institutional causes and consequences of scientific censorship (defined as actions aimed at obstructing particular scientific ideas from reaching an audience for reasons other than low scientific quality). Popular narratives suggest that scientific censorship is driven by authoritarian officials with dark motives, such as dogmatism and intolerance. Our analysis suggests that scientific censorship is often driven by scientists, who are primarily motivated by self-protection, benevolence toward peer scholars, and prosocial concerns for the well-being of human social groups. This perspective helps explain both recent findings on scientific censorship and recent changes to scientific institutions, such as the use of harm-based criteria to evaluate research. We discuss unknowns surrounding the consequences of censorship and provide recommendations for improving transparency and accountability in scientific decision-making to enable the exploration of these unknowns. The benefits of censorship may sometimes outweigh costs. However, until costs and benefits are examined empirically, scholars on opposing sides of ongoing debates are left to quarrel based on competing values, assumptions, and intuitions.

Normative developmental vs. reverse developmental trends in memory distortion: a framework to investigate the impact of internal and external influences on memory and their relevance to legal decisions.

There are two opposing positions regarding the development of memory: the normative developmental position, and the reverse developmental position. The normative position, which has long been the default presupposition, supports the notion that susceptibility to memory distortion, including false memories, decreases with age. In contrast, the concept of "developmental reversals" supports the notion that susceptibility to memory distortion and false memories increases with age. Each perspective finds support from existing theories as well as from research on endogenous and exogenous sources of influence. In a legal context, having an accurate understanding of the developmental course of false memory can contribute on the one hand to mitigating wrongful convictions and, on the other hand, to appreciating the accuracy of children's statements when warranted. This review aims to integrate the existing literature regarding these seemingly opposite developmental courses and construct a framework outlining the conditions under which we may observe one age trend over the other. This entails an examination of the paradigms that have been invoked to support these competing positions, specifically developmental responses to internal vs. external sources of distortion.

Exploring Gender Bias in Six Key Domains of Academic Science: An Adversarial Collaboration.

We synthesized the vast, contradictory scholarly literature on gender bias in academic science from 2000 to 2020. In the most prestigious journals and media outlets, which influence many people's opinions about sexism, bias is frequently portrayed as an omnipresent factor limiting women's progress in the tenure-track academy. Claims and counterclaims regarding the presence or absence of sexism span a range of evaluation contexts. Our approach relied on a combination of meta-analysis and analytic dissection. We evaluated the empirical evidence for gender bias in six key contexts in the tenure-track academy: (a) tenure-track hiring, (b) grant funding, (c) teaching ratings, (d) journal acceptances, (e) salaries, and (f) recommendation letters. We also explored the gender gap in a seventh area, journal productivity, because it can moderate bias in other contexts. We focused on these specific domains, in which sexism has most often been alleged to be pervasive, because they represent important types of evaluation, and the extensive research corpus within these domains provides sufficient quantitative data for comprehensive analysis. Contrary to the omnipresent claims of sexism in these domains appearing in top journals and the media, our findings show that tenure-track women are at parity with tenure-track men in three domains (grant funding, journal acceptances, and recommendation letters) and are advantaged over men in a fourth domain (hiring). For teaching ratings and salaries, we found evidence of bias against women; although gender gaps in salary were much smaller than often claimed, they were nevertheless concerning. Even in the four domains in which we failed to find evidence of sexism disadvantaging women, we nevertheless acknowledge that broad societal structural factors may still impede women's advancement in academic science. Given the substantial resources directed toward reducing gender bias in academic science, it is imperative to develop a clear understanding of when and where such efforts are justified and of how resources can best be directed to mitigate sexism when and where it exists.

James R. Flynn (1934-2020).

Memorializes James (Jim) R. Flynn (1934-2020). Jim was one of psychology's most influential thinkers even though he was not a psychologist, receiving a PhD in 1958 in politics and moral philosophy at the University of Chicago. At the time of his death, Jim was Emeritus Professor of Politics at the University of Otago in New Zealand. Over the course of his career, Jim amassed several high impact papers and books, including his two Psychological Bulletin articles, "Massive IQ Gains in 14 Nations: What IQ Tests Really Measure" and "The Mean IQ of Americans: Massive Gains 1932-1978." In 2019, in A Book Too Risky to Publish: Free Speech and Universities, he mounted a brilliant defense of free speech. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Lie for Me: Developmental Trends in Acquiescing to a Blatantly False Statement.

A pair of studies demonstrates that simply asking children to make a blatantly false accusation in the guise of helping others can result in both immediate and long-term false claims. In the pilot study, the initial willingness to make a blatantly false statement was associated with some children making false statements a week later despite being told that the first interviewer had made mistakes during the initial interview. On a positive note, the majority of participants accurately stated that they did not have first-hand knowledge of their accusation's accuracy. Across both studies, the rate of false accusation rates was high. The main experiment demonstrated that children who were young, possessed the lowest verbal intelligence or who were from the lowest SES homes made the most accusations. These findings illustrate not only the dangers of encouraging children to make false statements, but the ease and durability of making such false statements.

Analyzing the scientific foundation of Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome: A reply to Lyon et al.

The issue before the New Jersey Supreme Court in the Frye hearing New Jersey v. J.L.G. (2018) was whether the scientific community agreed that Summit's (1983) Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome rested on a firm scientific foundation. Lyon et al. (this issue) critique our approach to describing child sexual abuse disclosure, which involved extrapolating rates from children who came to the attention of authorities. Lyon et al. claim that our conclusions are marred by sampling biases resulting from what they term the ground truth problem, suspicion bias and substantiation bias. The points Lyon et al. claim we "fell victim to" were the very points we acknowledge are inherent difficulties in estimating the extent to which children will come forward to tell others about sexual maltreatment. Lyon et al. offer an alternative solution to the inherent difficulties in studying a difficult-to-identify population, relying in large part on 21 papers published mostly in the 1960s and 1970s. We argue that the method they propose has more flaws than the one it is intended to replace. Points of agreement and disagreement, along with suggestions for future research, are discussed. Moving forward, we argue that studies are needed that embrace both validity and generalizability in order to foster data-driven theories rather than invoking the intuitive suppositions of Summit's (1983) syndromal evidence.

Who Decides What Is Acceptable Speech on Campus? Why Restricting Free Speech Is Not the Answer.

Recent protests on dozens of campuses have led to the cancellation of controversial talks, and violence has accompanied several of these protests. Psychological science provides an important lens through which to view, understand, and potentially reduce these conflicts. In this article, we frame opposing sides' arguments within a long-standing corpus of psychological research on selective perception, confirmation bias, myside bias, illusion of understanding, blind-spot bias, groupthink/in-group bias, motivated skepticism, and naive realism. These concepts inform dueling claims: (a) the protestors' violence was justified by a higher moral responsibility to prevent marginalized groups from being victimized by hate speech, versus (b) the students' right to hear speakers was infringed upon. Psychological science cannot, however, be the sole arbiter of these campus debates; legal and philosophical considerations are also relevant. Thus, we augment psychological science with insights from these literatures to shed light on complexities associated with positions supporting free speech and those protesting hate speech. We conclude with a set of principles, most supported by empirical research, to inform university policies and help ensure vigorous freedom of expression within the context of an inclusive, diverse community.

Longitudinal IQ Trends in Children Diagnosed with Emotional Disturbance: An Analysis of Historical Data.

The overwhelming majority of the research on the historical impact of IQ in special education has focused on children with cognitive disorders. Far less is known about its role for students with emotional concerns, including Emotional Disturbance (ED). To address this gap, the current study examined IQ trends in ED children who were repeatedly tested on various combinations of the WISC, WISC-R, and WISC-III using a geographically diverse, longitudinal database of special education evaluation records. Findings on test/re-test data revealed that ED children experienced IQ trends that were consistent with previous research on the Flynn effect in the general population. Unlike findings associated with test/re-test data for children diagnosed with cognitive disorders, however, ED re-diagnoses were unaffected by these trends. Specifically, ED children's declining IQ scores when retested on newer norms did not result in changes in their ED diagnosis. The implications of this unexpected finding are discussed within the broader context of intelligence testing and special education policies.

Does Gender of Administrator Matter? National Study Explores U.S. University Administrators' Attitudes About Retaining Women Professors in STEM.

Omnipresent calls for more women in university administration presume women will prioritize using resources and power to increase female representation, especially in STEM fields where women are most underrepresented. However, empirical evidence is lacking for systematic differences in female vs. male administratorsÂS attitudes. Do female administrators agree on which strategies are best, and do men see things differently? We explored United States college and university administratorsÂS opinions regarding strategies, policies, and structural changes in their organizations designed to increase women professorsÂS representation and retention in STEM fields. A comprehensive review of past research yielded a database of potentially-effective, recommended policies. A survey based on these policies was sent to provosts, deans, associate deans, and department chairs of STEM fields at 96 public and private research universities across the U.S. These administrators were asked to rate the quality and feasibility of each strategy; 474 provided data, of which 334 contained complete numerical data used in the analyses. Our data revealed that female (vs. male) administrators believed the 44 strategies were higher in quality overall-but not higher in feasibility-with 9 strategies perceived differently by women and men, after imposing conservative statistical controls. There was broad general agreement on the relative-quality rankings of the 44 strategies. Women (vs. men) gave higher quality ratings to increasing the value of teaching, service, and administrative experience in tenure/promotion decisions, increasing flexibility of federal-grant funding to accommodate mothers, conducting gender-equity research, and supporting shared tenure lines enabling work-life balance. Women (vs. men) believed it was more feasible for men to stop the tenure clock for 1 year for childrearing and for universities to support requests for shared tenure lines, but less feasible for women to chair search committees. Our national survey thus supported the belief that placing women into administration creates greater endorsement of strategies to attract and retain women in STEM, although the effectiveness of these strategies was outside the scope of this research. Topics of disagreement between women and men are potentially important focuses of future policy, because female administrators may have insights into how to retain women that male administrators do not share.

How to actualize potential: a bioecological approach to talent development.

Bioecological theory posits three interacting principles to explain developmental outcomes such as fluctuating achievement levels and changing heritability coefficients. Here, we apply the theory to the domain of talent development, by reviewing short-term and long-term cognitive interventions. We argue that macro-level analyses of cultural practices (e.g., matrilineal inheritance and property ownership) and national systems of education are consistent with the bioecological theory; when the findings from these analyses are unpacked, the engines that drive them are so-called proximal processes. This finding has implications for the design and delivery of instruction and the development of talent. We argue that talent is fostered by the same three bioecological mechanisms that explain the actualization of genetic potential. We conclude by discussing several self-descriptions and personal narratives by gifted students in which they spontaneously refer to these bioecological mechanisms in their own talent-development processes. Similar testimonials have been documented by historic talent researchers such as Benjamin Bloom, noting the importance of continual adjustments in feedback.

Can Implicit Associations Distinguish True and False Eyewitness Memory? Development and Preliminary Testing of the IATe.

Eyewitness identification has been shown to be fallible and prone to false memory. In this study we develop and test a new method to probe the mechanisms involved in the formation of false memories in this area, and determine whether a particular memory is likely to be true or false. We created a seven-step procedure based on the Implicit Association Test to gauge implicit biases in eyewitness identification (the IATe). We show that identification errors may result from unconscious bias caused by implicit associations evoked by a given face. We also show that implicit associations between negative attributions such as guilt and eyewitnesses' final pick from a line-up can help to distinguish between true and false memory (especially where the witness has been subject to the suggestive nature of a prior blank line-up). Specifically, the more a witness implicitly associates an individual face with a particular crime, the more likely it is that a memory they have for that person committing the crime is false. These findings are consistent with existing findings in the memory and neuroscience literature showing that false memories can be caused by implicit associations that are outside conscious awareness. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Women have substantial advantage in STEM faculty hiring, except when competing against more-accomplished men.

Audits of tenure-track hiring reveal faculty prefer to hire female applicants over males. However, audit data do not control for applicant quality, allowing some to argue women are hired at higher rates because they are more qualified. To test this, Williams and Ceci (2015) conducted an experiment demonstrating a preference for hiring women over identically-qualified men. While their findings are consistent with audits, they raise the specter that faculty may prefer women over even more-qualified men, a claim made recently. We evaluated this claim in the present study: 158 faculty ranked two men and one woman for a tenure-track-assistant professorship, and 94 faculty ranked two women and one man. In the former condition, the female applicant was slightly weaker than her two male competitors, although still strong; in the other condition the male applicant was slightly weaker than his two female competitors, although still strong. Faculty of both genders and in all fields preferred the more-qualified men over the slightly-less-qualified women, and they also preferred the stronger women over the slightly-less-qualified man. This suggests that preference for women among identically-qualified applicants found in experimental studies and in audits does not extend to women whose credentials are even slightly weaker than male counterparts. Thus these data give no support to the twin claims that weaker males are chosen over stronger females or weaker females are hired over stronger males.

Insight into children's prosocial lies: Comment on Warneken and Orlins.

In their article, Warneken and Orlins () provide insight into children's prosocial lie-telling. Their work adds to a growing body of literature regarding the development of prosocial behaviour and indicates that young children will tell 'white lies' in order to improve the mood of others. This work has important implications for forensic contexts that we note.

National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track.

National randomized experiments and validation studies were conducted on 873 tenure-track faculty (439 male, 434 female) from biology, engineering, economics, and psychology at 371 universities/colleges from 50 US states and the District of Columbia. In the main experiment, 363 faculty members evaluated narrative summaries describing hypothetical female and male applicants for tenure-track assistant professorships who shared the same lifestyle (e.g., single without children, married with children). Applicants' profiles were systematically varied to disguise identically rated scholarship; profiles were counterbalanced by gender across faculty to enable between-faculty comparisons of hiring preferences for identically qualified women versus men. Results revealed a 2:1 preference for women by faculty of both genders across both math-intensive and non-math-intensive fields, with the single exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference. Results were replicated using weighted analyses to control for national sample characteristics. In follow-up experiments, 144 faculty evaluated competing applicants with differing lifestyles (e.g., divorced mother vs. married father), and 204 faculty compared same-gender candidates with children, but differing in whether they took 1-y-parental leaves in graduate school. Women preferred divorced mothers to married fathers; men preferred mothers who took leaves to mothers who did not. In two validation studies, 35 engineering faculty provided rankings using full curricula vitae instead of narratives, and 127 faculty rated one applicant rather than choosing from a mixed-gender group; the same preference for women was shown by faculty of both genders. These results suggest it is a propitious time for women launching careers in academic science. Messages to the contrary may discourage women from applying for STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) tenure-track assistant professorships.

The psychology of psychology: A thought experiment.

In the target article, Duarte et al. allege that the lack of political diversity reduces research efficacy. We pose a thought experiment that could provide an empirical test by examining whether institutional review board (IRB) members, granting agencies, and journal reviewers filter scientific products based on political values, invoking scientific criteria (rigor, etc.) as their justification. When these same products are cast in terms highlighting opposite values, do these people shift their decisions?

Breadth-Based Models of Women's Underrepresentation in STEM Fields: An Integrative Commentary on Schmidt (2011) and Nye et al. (2012).

Relative strength of math and verbal abilities and interests drive science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) career choices more than absolute math ability alone. Having one dominant aptitude (e.g., for mathematics) increases the likelihood of a strong self-concept in that domain and decreases the likelihood of equivocation about career choices in comparison with individuals with equivalent mathematical aptitude who have comparable strength in non-math areas. Males are more likely than females to have an asymmetrical cognitive profile of higher aptitude in math relative to verbal domains. Together, these two points suggest that the academic and career pursuits of high math ability males may be attributable to their narrower options among STEM fields, whereas females' more symmetrical cognitive profile means their math and verbal interests compete in the formation of their ability self-concept and, hence, in their broader career choices. Such equivocation about STEM careers is in fact already evident in girls with high math aptitude as early as junior high school. Thus, we argue that asymmetry in interests and aptitudes is an underappreciated factor in sex differences in career choice. To the extent this is true, focusing on strengthening young women's STEM-related abilities and ability self-concepts to increase female STEM representation may be an unproductive approach; to increase representation, it may be more effective to focus on harvesting the potential of those girls and women whose breadth of interest and high ability spans social/verbal and spatial/numerical domains. The use of interventions that play to this greater breadth by socially contextualizing STEM is one potential solution.

Deception detection, transmission, and modality in age and sex.

This study is the first to create and use spontaneous (i.e., unrehearsed) pro-social lies in an ecological setting. Creation of the stimuli involved 51 older adult and 44 college student "senders" who lied "authentically" in that their lies were spontaneous in the service of protecting a research assistant. In the main study, 77 older adult and 84 college raters attempted to detect lies in the older adult and college senders in three modalities: audio, visual, and audiovisual. Raters of both age groups were best at detecting lies in the audiovisual and worst in the visual modalities. Overall, college students were better detectors than older adults. There was an age-matching effect for college students but not for older adults. Older adult males were the hardest to detect. The older the adult was the worse the ability to detect deception.

Attracting STEM talent: do STEM students prefer traditional or work/life-interaction labs?

The demand for employees trained in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields continues to increase, yet the number of Millennial students pursuing STEM is not keeping pace. We evaluated whether this shortfall is associated with Millennials' preference for flexibility and work/life-interaction in their careers-a preference that may be inconsistent with the traditional idea of a science career endorsed by many lab directors. Two contrasting approaches to running STEM labs and training students were explored, and we created a lab recruitment video depicting each. The work-focused video emphasized the traditional notions of a science lab, characterized by long work hours and a focus on individual achievement and conducting research above all else. In contrast, the work/life-interaction-focused video emphasized a more progressive view - lack of demarcation between work and non-work lives, flexible hours, and group achievement. In Study 1, 40 professors rated the videos, and the results confirmed that the two lab types reflected meaningful real-world differences in training approaches. In Study 2, we recruited 53 current and prospective graduate students in STEM fields who displayed high math-identification and a commitment to science careers. In a between-subjects design, they watched one of the two lab-recruitment videos, and then reported their anticipated sense of belonging to and desire to participate in the lab depicted in the video. Very large effects were observed on both primary measures: Participants who watched the work/life-interaction-focused video reported a greater sense of belonging to (d = 1.49) and desire to participate in (d = 1.33) the lab, relative to participants who watched the work-focused video. These results suggest Millennials possess a strong desire for work/life-interaction, which runs counter to the traditional lab-training model endorsed by many lab directors. We discuss implications of these findings for STEM recruitment.