Suchergebnisse

Frontmatter -- Contents -- List of Tables and Figures -- Acknowledgments -- I Interdisciplinary Cross-Fertilization -- I. An Overview of the Field of Political Psychology -- 2. The Poly-Psy Relationship: Three Phases of a Long Affair -- 3. Psychohistory and Political Psychology: A Comparative Analysis -- II Attitudes and Behavior -- 4. Political Perception -- 5. Symbolic Politics: A Socio-Psychological Theory -- 6. Nonverbal Behavior and Leadership: Emotion and Cognition in Political Information Processing -- 7. The Psychology of Group Conflict and the Dynamics of Oppression: A Social Dominance Perspective -- III Information Processing and Cognition -- 8. Inside the Mental Voting Booth: An Impression-Driven Process Model of Candidate Evaluation -- 9. Political Information Processing -- 10. Affect and Political Judgment -- IV Decision Making and Choice -- 11. Information and Electoral Attitudes: A Case of Judgment Under Uncertainty -- 12. The Drunkard's Search -- 13. Decision Making in Presidential Primaries -- 14. Cognitive Structural Analysis of Political Rhetoric: Methodological and Theoretical Issues -- References -- Index -- Contributors

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.