Search

Science is among humanitys 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.

The current work seeks to contribute as a continuation of evolutionary-based studies investigating the effects of social transgressions on human behavior. Our evolved capacity for social connections is predicated on reciprocal trust within a relationship. In ancestral conditions, violating that trust could have adverse implications on a betrayer, as well as the victim who was betrayed. By looking beyond forgiveness or social estrangements, this study focuses on our willingness to help the offender after a betrayal has taken place. Our main predictions were that future altruism would more likely be offered by the victim if the harm-doer was kin, if the betrayal did not occur publicly, and if the betrayal was relatively minor. To test these hypotheses, we randomly presented 449 participants with betrayal scenarios that varied in relatedness (kin or non-kin), publicity (public or private), and severity of betrayal (major or minor). We found that only the severity of the betrayal and whether the betrayal was public or private had a significant effect on social reciprocity intended helping behavior. Additionally, certain dispositional predictors of the Light and Dark Triad played a significant role on whether the victim would extend a helping hand after being betrayed by the same person. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The American social and political climate has become increasingly polarized. To explore the effects of politically based ingroup biases as they relate to intended helping of others, we designed a study in which we hypothesized that people who are extreme on the political spectrum will intend to help in-group members more so than out-group members. Using an experimental manipulation, we asked participants to choose if extremely progressive (N = 212; mean age = 22.9; 69% female), extremely conservative (N = 47; mean age = 32.8; 55% male), or neither represented their political beliefs. Participants were randomized to one of two vignettes, each depicting either a pro-blue lives matter or pro-black lives matter scenario. Results showed that, controlling for both age and gender, progressives were less likely to help out-group members compared with individuals in any other condition. Dispositional variables were also measured with dark and light triad traits. Light triad traits tended to positively predict helping intentions across conditions. Implications for understanding the psychology of helping are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]