Self-censorship, controversy and taboo in psychological science

Taboo topics exist in most academic fields, but in psychology, they can be particularly powerful. Fears of speaking up, sharing findings that challenge the status quo, or publishing findings that may harm particular demographics, can mean researchers don't necessarily know what their peers think about these topics.

These academics do know what some leading journals think about this, though. In 2022, a Nature Human Behavior editorial, for example, indicated that a paper could be rejected if it could potentially cause harm to a specific group [see also Alon Zivony's article in our June issue]. 'Advancing knowledge and understanding is a fundamental public good,' the editorial read. 'In some cases, however, potential harms to the populations studied may outweigh the benefit of publication.'

University ethics boards have long protected participants from harm, but 'these new policies seek to protect society from putative harms that may attend the dissemination of science,' write the authors of a recent paper in Psychological Science. At the same time, note Cory J. Clark at the University of Pennsylvania and a long list of colleagues at mostly American universities, some scholars have raised a different concern: about a threat to academic freedom stemming from a fear of causing harm to vulnerable groups.

So how do psychology researchers actually feel about taboo topics? Do they self-censor their beliefs? And what should happen to scholars who communicate research that might fit the bill of being 'potentially harmful' to a disadvantaged group?

To explore these questions, the team emailed a survey to 4,603 psychology professors at the top 100 psychology graduate programmes in the U.S. These professors were assured that their responses would be kept anonymous. Despite this, most didn't reply, but 470 (who were still demographically representative of the larger group) answered at least some of the questions.

After reading 10 taboo statements, which Clark and her colleagues had identified during a pilot study, the participants were asked to rate how true or false they felt each was; how reluctant they would feel about openly sharing their beliefs on this topic if it came up in a professional setting, such as a conference; and to what extent they believed scholars should be discouraged from testing its veracity.

Here's the list of taboo statements that were rated by the US-based participants:

• 'The tendency to engage in sexually coercive behaviour likely evolved because it conferred some evolutionary advantages on men who engaged in such behaviour.'
• 'Gender biases are not the most important drivers of the under-representation of women in STEM fields.'
• 'Academia discriminates against Black people (eg. in hiring, promotion, grants, invitations to participate in colloquia/symposia).'
• 'Biological sex is binary for the vast majority of people.'
• 'The social sciences (in the U.S.) discriminate against conservatives (eg. in hiring, promotion, grants, invitations to participate in colloquia/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 non-trivial (10 per cent or more) variance in race differences in intelligence test scores.'
• 'Transgender identity is sometimes the product of social influence.'
• 'Demographic diversity (race, gender) in the workplace often leads to worse performance.'

Clark and her team found that for every conclusion, at least some of the professors were 100 per cent certain it was true, while others were 100 per cent certain it was false. For six of the conclusions – on evolved psychological sex differences, binary biological sex, genetic contribution to IQ differences, demographic diversity, and workplace performance – the average level of belief hovered around the midpoint, but there was lots of disagreement about every given statement.

'These findings seem to indicate little to no scientific consensus on these conclusions, despite high levels of confidence among some scholars (and in both directions),' the team notes. Whether or not the academics rating these statements had in-depth, up-to-date knowledge of each topic, however, is impossible to know; some of these ratings, therefore, may be more based in opinion than scientific rigour.

When it came to the results on self-censorship, again there were big differences in the responses. While many professors reported no reluctance to share their views, others said they would be extremely reluctant to share them.

Most felt that research on these topics should not be discouraged, however. Of the ten statements, the greatest levels of discouragement were for research into a potential genetic contribution to IQ differences – but there was still plenty of disagreement about this.

When the team considered the professors' demographic data alongside their responses, they found some divides. For example, the male professors self-censored more than the females. They also believed more strongly in the truth of every single taboo conclusion, with two exceptions: the women and men were more aligned on the idea that there is a political bias in social science, and the women believed more strongly that academia discriminates against Black people.

The results also revealed that the male professors were quite confident that men and women evolved different psychological characteristics, whereas the females were on the fence about this. For other statements, though, the reverse was true. This led the researchers to write: 'Future research should explore whether male and female psychology professors present to their students different evidence and arguments regarding the veracity of taboo conclusions.'

After these initial three questions came others that delved into the professors' personal fears and attitudes towards their peers.

The results revealed that they were quite concerned about being attacked on social media, being ostracised by peers, and being stigmatised if they openly shared their beliefs on these ten topics. As the researchers note, they acknowledged their beliefs to be 'socially costly'. Many also agreed with the idea that some empirically supported conclusions are 'taboo'.

The participants also tended to feel that moral concerns that a conclusion could harm vulnerable groups were not a legitimate reason for a paper to be retracted. The vast majority also felt that only 'compelling evidence' of harm could justify the suppression of controversial research. Neither, overall, did they feel that concerns about the risks of extremists misconstruing or weaponising taboo results were a reason for a paper to be retracted, though women endorsed this more than men.

Another striking finding was that these professors were, overall, 'very contemptuous' of peers who participated in campaigns to get a paper retracted on moral grounds. 'This raises the question of whether scholars may be contemptuous of journal editors who retract papers for these reasons,' the researchers write.

The responses also revealed that only a narrow majority (52.3 per cent) felt that scholars should be completely free to pursue research questions without fear of institutional punishment for their conclusions, while 1.6 per cent said they should not be free to do this, and 40.6 per cent went for the response option: 'it's complicated.'

When it came to how scholars who published or taught taboo conclusions should be handled, there was very strong support for normal scientific criticism such as journal commentaries, little support for disinviting these academics from talks, and very little support for refusing to publish their work, or for shaming them on social media.

Returning to that demographic perspective, the team reports finding that female, more left-leaning, and younger faculty were generally more opposed to controversial scholarship.

Clark and colleagues do acknowledge a number of limitations to this work. One, clearly, is that it concerns the views of only US-based professors. Also, despite assurances of anonymity, the respondents may not have felt able to disclose their true attitudes. 

Indeed, the researchers regard this work as a starting point for important work into how scholars feel about taboo research. Certainly, their work suggests a lot of division. 'These data cannot resolve the identified conflicts,' the team writes, 'but they may contribute to a shared understanding of the diversity and distribution of perspectives among psychological scientists.'

• Find more from our Research Digest.