A new study reveals a disturbing phenomenon in psychology: many researchers are reluctant to publicly advocate certain theories and findings for fear of social sanctions and career disadvantages. This article highlights the taboo topics, the reasons for self-censorship and the implications for science and society. A plea for open and responsible science.
Psychology, as a science dedicated to the study of the human mind and behavior, is not free of taboos and unspoken fears. A recent study published in the journal “Perspectives on Psychological Science” reveals a disturbing reality: many psychologists are reluctant to publicly advocate certain theories and findings, even though they consider them to be true. Fear of social sanctions, career disadvantages and public condemnation leads to widespread self-censorship, threatening free research and open discourse in psychology.
The study: a snapshot of self-censorship
The study, conducted by Cory Clark and Philip Tetlock of the University of Pennsylvania, is based on a survey of around 470 psychologists researching or teaching at 133 US universities. The participants were asked to comment on ten controversial theses and to indicate whether they would publicly defend their opinions on them. The results show a clear picture: self-censorship is widespread in psychology, and the fear of negative consequences prevents many researchers from openly communicating their findings.
Results and analysis of the study
The study revealed a number of remarkable results that illustrate the extent and reasons for self-censorship in psychology:
- No unified opinion: There was no consensus among the psychologists surveyed on any of the ten controversial theses. Some theses were even judged to be 100% true by some and 100% untrue by others. This shows that there is a wide range of opinions and perspectives in psychology, but that these are not always openly articulated.
- Self-censorship is widespread: Around half of the respondents stated that they were hesitant to publicly express their opinion on at least one of the theses. This suggests that self-censorship is a widespread phenomenon in psychology.
- Relationship between conviction and self-censorship: The more strongly respondents believed a thesis to be true, the more likely they were to report that they wanted to keep their opinion to themselves. This suggests that the fear of negative consequences is particularly great when researchers are convinced of the correctness of their findings.
- Fear of social sanctions: Fear of social exclusion, verbal abuse, and attacks in social media were the most common reasons for self-censorship. This shows that the social climate in psychology is often characterized by pressure to conform and intolerance of dissenting opinions.
- Concern for reputation and career: Concern for reputation and fear of negative career repercussions were also important reasons for self-censorship. This suggests that researchers often feel compelled to censor their opinions in order to avoid jeopardizing their professional future.
- Fear of dismissal: Although only a few respondents expressed fear of dismissal, the study shows that even professors with permanent positions worry about their jobs if they put forward controversial theses. This underlines the precarious situation of many scientists who depend on temporary contracts and third-party funding.
- Support for freedom of research: A slight majority of respondents called for complete freedom to investigate research questions. This shows that there is also a strong current in psychology that advocates free research and open discourse.
- Rejection of censorship and sanctions: Most respondents rejected the idea of excluding researchers from events, socially ostracizing them, stigmatizing them, or even dismissing them for critical theses. This suggests that although the majority of psychologists practice self-censorship, they nevertheless recognize the importance of freedom of expression and open discourse.
- Rejection of morally motivated censorship: A large majority of respondents rejected the idea of withdrawing or not publishing scientific studies for moral reasons. This shows that most psychologists reject the idea that research results should be censored based on their potential social or political impact.
Taboo topics in psychology
The study identified a number of topics that are considered particularly taboo in psychology. These include:
- Evolutionary benefits of sexualized violence: The idea that sexualized violence may have offered an advantage for men in human evolution is deeply disturbing to many people. The fear of being perceived as an advocate of violence or abuse causes many researchers to avoid this topic, even though it may be scientifically relevant.
- Social influences as a cause of trans identity: The question of whether trans identity may be partly shaped by social influences is another hotly debated topic. The fear of being perceived as transphobic or intolerant leads many researchers to avoid this topic, even though it could be important for understanding gender identity.
- Heredity of IQ differences: The discussion about the heritability of intelligence and possible differences between groups has long been controversial. The fear of being perceived as a racist or a proponent of eugenics causes many researchers to avoid this topic, although it could be relevant for understanding intelligence and educational success.
These examples show that taboo topics in psychology are often linked to sensitive social issues that evoke strong emotions and moral judgments. Fear of stigma, public condemnation, and career disadvantage means that many researchers prefer to remain silent rather than risk losing their reputation or their jobs.
Reasons for self-censorship: fear and insecurity
The study identifies several reasons why psychologists are hesitant to publicly express their opinions on controversial topics:
- Fear of social exclusion: The fear of being rejected or ostracized by colleagues, students, or the public.
- Fear of verbal abuse and attacks in social media: The increasing polarization and aggressiveness in social media.
- Concern for reputation: Concern for reputation and the fear of negative career repercussions.
- Fear of dismissal: Although few respondents expressed fear of dismissal, the study shows that even tenured professors may worry about keeping their jobs.
These fears and insecurities create a climate of self-censorship that hinders free inquiry and open discourse in psychology.
Effects of Self-Censorship
The widespread self-censorship in psychology has serious implications:
- Distortion of research: Important questions remain unanswered, and findings that could be relevant to understanding the human mind and behavior are not published or discussed.
- Obstruction of scientific progress: Free research and open exchange of ideas are fundamental to scientific progress. Self-censorship hinders this process.
- Loss of trust in science: If the public gets the impression that scientists censor or manipulate their results, this can lead to a loss of trust.
- Restriction of freedom of expression: Self-censorship is a form of restriction of freedom of expression, which is not only harmful to science but also to society as a whole.
The ethical dilemma: freedom of research vs. social responsibility
The study also raises important ethical questions. On the one hand, there is the precious commodity of freedom of research. On the other hand, there is the social responsibility of science.
This dilemma also becomes clear in practice. Some journals have already announced that they will reject or withdraw articles if their possible consequences outweigh the restriction of freedom of research.
Conclusion
The study by Clark and Tetlock provides important insights into the challenges facing psychology as a science. It shows that self-censorship is a widespread problem that hinders scientific progress and open discourse. The fear of social sanctions and career disadvantages means that many researchers are hesitant to communicate their findings openly, especially if these touch on controversial or socially sensitive topics.
This self-censorship has serious consequences. It can lead to a distortion of the state of research, hinder scientific progress and undermine public trust in science. Furthermore, it represents a restriction of freedom of expression, which is harmful not only to science but also to society as a whole.
To promote open and responsible science, we need to create an environment in which researchers can freely communicate their findings without fear of negative consequences.
This includes fostering a culture of open debate at universities and research institutions, where controversial topics can be discussed without fear of stigmatization or career disadvantages. Protecting freedom of expression is essential here, because it is a fundamental human right that must also apply to scientists. Institutions should actively promote this protection and support researchers who are attacked because of their research results.
Transparent communication of research results is another important step. Scientists should communicate their results in an understandable way to avoid misunderstandings and be prepared to face critical questions. At the same time, they must handle their research results responsibly, be aware of their social responsibility and ensure that their findings are not misused.
The study by Clark and Tetlock is a wake-up call for psychology. It shows that self-censorship is a serious problem that hinders the progress of science and open discourse. By facing this challenge and actively working to create a climate of openness and critical thinking, we can ensure that psychology can continue to fulfill its important role in exploring the human mind and behavior.
Further thoughts
The results of the study raise a number of further questions that could inspire future research and discussions:
- How can we create a climate in which researchers feel safe to investigate controversial topics and communicate their results openly?
- What role do social media and increasing polarization in society play in the emergence of taboos and self-censorship in science?
- How can we ensure that research results are used responsibly and not misused to stigmatize or discriminate against groups?
- How can we raise public awareness of the importance of research freedom and strengthen trust in science?
- What role can universities and research institutions play in promoting open and responsible science?
Addressing these questions is crucial to ensure the future of psychology as a science and to ensure that it can continue to make a valuable contribution to our understanding of the human mind and behavior.
