Publication Cover
Psychological Inquiry
An International Journal for the Advancement of Psychological Theory
Volume 31, 2020 - Issue 1
427
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Reply

Without Contraries is no Progression

&

References

  • Altemeyer, R. A. (1996). The authoritarian spectre. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
  • Axt, J. R., Ebersole, C. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2016). An unintentional, robust, and replicable pro- Black bias in social judgment. Social Cognition, 34(1), 1–39. doi:10.1521/soco.2016.34.1.1
  • Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 407–425. doi:10.1037/a0021524
  • Claassen, R. L., & Ensley, M. J. (2016). Motivated reasoning and yard-sign-stealing partisans: Mine is a likable rogue, yours is a degenerate criminal. Political Behavior, 38(2), 317–335. doi:10.1007/s11109-015-9313-9
  • Conway, III. L. G., Houck, S. C., Gornick, L. J., & Repke, M. A. (2018). Finding the Loch Ness monster: Left-Wing authoritarianism in the United States. Political Psychology, 39, 1049–1067.
  • Ditto, P. H., Clark, C. J., Liu, B. S., Wojcik, S. P., Chen, E. E., Grady, R. H., … Zinger, J. F. (2019). Partisan bias and its discontents. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(2), 304–316. doi:10.1177/1745691618817753
  • Ditto, P. H., Liu, B. S., Clark, C. J., Wojcik, S. P., Chen, E. E., Grady, R. H., … Zinger, J. F. (2019). At least bias is bipartisan: A meta-analytic comparison of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(2), 273–291.
  • Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1996). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life (1st Free Press pbk. ed edition). New York, NY: Free Press.
  • Hunt, M. (1998). The new know nothings. New York, NY: Transaction.
  • Hunt, E. (2010). Human intelligence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  • Ings, S. (2016). Stalin and the Scientists: A History of Triumph and Tragedy 1905–1953. London, UK: Faber & Faber.
  • Joubert, J. (1883). Pensées essais (P. Raynal, Trans.). Sydney, Australia: Wentworth Press.
  • Kopko, K. C., Bryner, S. M., Budziak, J., Devine, C. J., & Nawara, S. P. (2011). In the eye of the beholder? Motivated reasoning in disputed elections. Political Behavior, 33(2), 271–290. doi:10.1007/s11109-010-9133-x
  • Kteily, N. S., Rocklage, M. D., McClanahan, K., & Ho, A. K. (2019). Political ideology shapes the amplification of the accomplishments of disadvantaged vs. advantaged group members. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(5), 1559–1568. doi:10.1073/pnas.1818545116
  • Reinero, D. A., Wills, J., Brady, W. J., Mende-Siedlecki, P., Crawford, J. V., & Bavel, J. J. (2019). Is the political slant of psychology research related to scientific replicability? Manuscript submitted for publication. New York, NY: New York University.
  • Rindermann, H., Becker, D., & Coyle, T. R. (2020). Survey of expert opinion on intelligence: Intelligence research, experts’ background, controversial issues, and the media. Intelligence, 78, 101406. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406
  • Segerstrale, U. (2000). Defenders of the truth: The battle for science in the sociobiology debate and beyond. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  • Shewach, O. R., Sackett, P. R., & Quint, S. (2019). Stereotype threat effects in settings with features likely versus unlikely in operational test settings: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(12), 1514–1534. doi:10.1037/apl0000420
  • Snyderman, M., and Rothman, S. (1988). The IQ controversy, the media and public policy. New York, NY: Transaction Publishers.
  • Stewart-Williams, S., Thomas, A., Blackburn, J. D., & Chan, C. Y. M. (2019). Reactions to male-favoring vs. female-favoring sex differences: A preregistered experiment. Manuscript submitted for publication.
  • Uhlmann, E. L., Pizarro, D. A., Tannenbaum, D., & Ditto, P. H. (2009). The motivated use of moral principles. Judgment and Decision Making, 4, 479–491.
  • Winegard, B. M., & Clark, C. J. (2019). Ideology and perceptions of group differences: Data report for the Equalitarianism Scale. Unpublished Manuscript.
  • Winegard, B. M., Clark, C. J., & Bunnel, E. (2019). The ideology of censorship. Manuscript submitted for publication.
  • Winegard, B. M., Clark, C. J., Hasty, C. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2018). Equalitarianism: A source of liberal bias. Manuscript submitted for publication.
  • Winegard, B. M., Winegard, B. M., & Deaner, R. O. (2014). Misrepresentations of evolutionary psychology in sex and gender textbooks. Evolutionary Psychology, 12(3), 147470491401200. doi:10.1177/147470491401200301
  • Winegard, B., Winegard, B., & Boutwell, B. (2017). Human biological and psychological diversity. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 3(2), 159–180. doi:10.1007/s40806-016-0081-5

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.