How to Ruin Sex Research

Pedophile, Child Lover, or Minor-Attracted Person? Attitudes Toward Labels Among People Who are Sexually Attracted to Children

The primary label for people who are sexually attracted to children ("pedophile") is conflated with sexual offending behavior and tainted with stigma. In the present pre-registered mixed-method study, we therefore investigated attitudes and preferences regarding "pedophile/hebephile" and other labels among 286 people who report a stronger or equally strong sexual attraction to prepubescent and pubescent children than to adults. Overall, quantitative data showed acceptance of "pedophile/hebephile" as well as a range of alternative labels in a personal (Labeling Oneself) and a professional context (Being Labeled by Others). "Minor-attracted person" and "pedophile/hebephile" received generally higher support than other terms and appeared to be least divisive across three major online fora. Qualitative data revealed four themes: "Contested self-labels," "Person-first language and pathologizing sexuality/identity," "Stigma and shame," and "Reclaiming the pedophile label." Our results allow deeper insight into reasons for adopting certain labels over others, as well as difficulties of finding a non-stigmatizing label. We discuss limitations of the study and practical implications for clinical and research contexts.

Fairly Criticized, or Politicized? Conflicts in the Neuroscience of Sex Differences in the Human Brain

Investigations of sex differences in the human brain take place on politically sensitive terrain. While some scholars express concern that gendered biases and stereotypes remain embedded in scientific research, others are alarmed about the politicization of science. To help better understand these debates, this review sets out three kinds of conflicts that can arise in the neuroscience of sex differences: academic freedom versus gender equality; frameworks, background assumptions, and dominant methodologies; and inductive risk and social values. The boundaries between fair criticism and politicization are explored for each kind of conflict, pointing to ways in which the academic community can facilitate fair criticism while protecting against politicization.

Political Orientation and Belief in Science in a U.S. College Sample

Lay skepticism toward empirically supported scientific research has increased significantly in recent years. Given that part of the social contract of science is the betterment of society, it is critical for the scientific community to identify factors underlying public dismissal versus support of scientific evidence. The current study explores how individual differences in political ideology influence acceptance of factual and nonfactual information, with differences in truth-seeking values as a potential mediating variable. Participants rated their agreement with true and untrue (i.e., nonempirically supported) statements and completed self-report assessments of political ideology and personal endorsement of values associated with promoting truth. More politically, liberal individuals reported greater agreement with both scientific facts and untrue statements. Furthermore, endorsement of truth-seeking values mediated the relation between liberal ideology and agreement with facts (but not nonfactual statements). Results suggest that interventions to increase individuals' acceptance of facts may benefit from stimulating greater support for truth-seeking values and behavior.