Notes
1 For a scientific account of the plural ideologically conservative principles, values and psychological predispositions confer Azevedo, Jost, Rothmund and Sterling (Citation2019), Bobbio (Citation1996), Dunn & Woodard (Citation2003), Federico & Malka (Citation2018), Feldman & Johnston (Citation2014), Freeden, (1996), Haidt (Citation2012), Heywood (Citation2017), Jost, Federico, and Napier (Citation2009), Kirk (Citation1987), and Tomkins (Citation1963).
2 Note that the ideological qualification in scientific reticence is of relevance. The argument is not that scientists are necessarily conservative in their reporting, but that careful scientific processes—absent of perverse incentives—likely leads to scientific reticence. Another goal is to show that the authors’ imprudent narrative also fails to consider alternative explanations that do not conform to their own image of science—an accusation they leveraged to the entirety of social scientists. Surely, in Psychology, where hiring pressures and perverse incentives are rampant, but unrelated to ideological epistemology, there is robust empirical evidence showing that effect sizes are likely overreported (Schäfer & Schwarz, Citation2019).
Azevedo, F., Jost, J. T., Rothmund, T., & Sterling, J. (2019). Neoliberal ideology and the justification of inequality in capitalist societies: Why social and economic dimensions of ideology are intertwined. Journal of Social Issues, 75(1), 49–88. doi:10.1111/josi.12310 Bobbio, N. (1996). Left and right: The significance of a political distinction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Dunn, C. W., & Woodard, J. D. (2003). The conservative tradition in America. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Federico, C. M., & Malka, A. (2018). The contingent, contextual nature of the relationship between needs for security and certainty and political preferences: Evidence and implications. Political Psychology, 39, 3–48. doi:10.1111/pops.12477 Feldman, S., & Johnston, C. (2014). Understanding the determinants of political ideology: Implications of structural complexity. Political Psychology, 35(3), 337–358. doi:10.1111/pops.12055 Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. London, England. Vintage. Heywood, A. (2017). Political ideologies: An introduction. London, England: Macmillan International Higher Education. Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 307–337. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163600 Kirk, R. (1987). Ten conservative principles. Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation. Tomkins, S. S. (1963). Left and right: A basic dimension of ideology and personality. In R. W. White (Ed.), The study of lives (pp. 388–411). New York, NY: Atherton Press. Schäfer, T., & Schwarz, M. (2019). The meaningfulness of effect sizes in psychological research: Differences between sub-disciplines and the impact of potential biases. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 813. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00813
![Sample our Behavioral Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110801/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Behavioral-Sciences.jpg"})
