Verified by 
Social psychologists are decidedly liberal, with fewer than 6% of social psychologists holding conservative political values. In addition to this strong liberal presence, the field of social psychology is extremely hostile to researchers and writers within the field who present arguments or research consistent with more conservative views. Jonathan Haidt is a social psychologist who first brought attention to this pattern by asking an audience of social psychologists to identify their political affiliations and values. In 2015, he published a paper exploring this issue, and suggesting that this liberal bias affects research questions, interpretation of results, and even funding.
Giving a plenary over the April 15 weekend at the 2016 Society for Sex Therapy and Research (SSTAR) Conference, I replicated Haidt's informal survey of political views. SSTAR is a longstanding , leading association of both therapists and researchers in the field of sexuality, and the topic of this conference was: Challenging Ideology and Changing Perspectives. I had long presumed that the field of sexual research and therapy likely reflected similar political dispositions as have been demonstrated in social psychology, but this issue had never been examined. Like Haidt's first survey, I asked plenary attendees to raise their hands if they identified as liberal/Democrat, moderate, or conservative/Republican.
Of 160 attendees in my plenary:
- About 8 (5%) identified as moderate.
- About 4 (2.5%) identified as Conservative.
- The remainder, around 148, (92.5%) identified as Liberal/Democrat.
The field of sexuality therapy and research may be even more liberal in political values than the field of social psychology, already a highly liberal field. In many ways, this makes intuitive sense, given the different sexual values and attitudes between different political ideologies.
In today's heightened, sensational conversations about sexuality in our society, there are clear divides between political perspectives on sexuality, which are playing out in the media, in bathrooms, in laws, and even in the choices by performers as to where to hold concerts.
- In Utah, the state legislature and governor signed a resolution declaring porn a "public health crisis," citing research and theories blaming porn for social issues which are not well connected to porn, at least in the field of sexual health. At the same time, Utah remains a state where youth have little to no access to medically-accurate sexual education information.
- Study after study demonstrates that the conflict between a person's religious values and their use of pornography is at root of most struggles over porn use. However, intervention strategies for problematic porn use continue to focus on the porn, rather than helping people to resolve this conflict between the availability of porn and their religion.
- In North Carolina and other conservative-led Southern US states, laws have been put in place restricting rights of the LGBT and specifically transgender persons, despite no evidence of any issues involving trans people in bathrooms.
- In the United Kingdom, laws and administrative actions have been emplaced to restrict access to various types of pornography, based on arguments that such material is causing rape and sexual violence. Research on the links between sexual violence and pornography suggest there is a limited, tenuous connection, and that pornography has a limited effect, compared to issues such as alcohol, poverty, sexist attitudes and mental health. Support for sex education in the UK remains a controversial issue, especially for LGBT youth.
- In 2016, President Obama ended federal funding for abstinence-only education, a program which was greatly expanded under past conservative administrations. Sex research has shown for many years that abstinence-only education was ineffective, and even harmful in preventing pregnancy or infections. Though neither Cruz nor Trump appear to have spoken about restoring abstinence-only funding if elected, both have expressed strong conservative values about a host of issues from abortion to sex toys.
The list of political controversies over sexuality-related issues can easily go on and on, and sadly, grows each day. In most such cases, established research and evidence about these dynamics is ignored, where the findings disagree with the sexual values of the politicians and political groups involved. I believe that the liberal orientation of many in sexual research is one of the most significant reasons why such research is discounted in these socio-political dialogues. Despite the strong evidence held by many sexual researchers, their approach to opposition and challenges is often seen as smug.
The point, in my pragmatic opinion, is not about who is right or wrong, or whose sexual values most match current understanding. I've railed for many years against the intrusion of moral bias about sexuality into mental health treatment. When sexual research is being ignored on a grand scale in social and political actions towards sexuality issues, a researchers' impact factor clearly must bow to the real-world.
We must not discount that the research we rely upon for these conclusions may be flawed as well, as shown in the developing crisis over replication. Research which confirmed liberal assumptions gets published, despite astounding evidence of flaws and even potential malfeasance. And, we mustn't ignore the fact that liberals themselves are now under fire for stifling debate on college campuses, in favor of their own ideology.
In my plenary at SSTAR, after demonstrating, in real life, the heavy liberal presence in the field, I pointed out some of these impacts to the audience of sex researchers and therapists. I suggested that these biases are one reason that their messages and research has been less well-received than the messages of more conservative religious groups such as Fight The New Drug, Morality in the Media, the Family Research Council, and the sex addiction industry, whose views and platforms appeal to a more politically and socio-sexually conservative audience. I challenged the audience to consider how our field sometimes shames fellow sex researchers or therapists who present research or opinions on sex which may be more supportive of conservative ideas. Researchers who are exploring the mechanisms or potential of how pornography may contribute to sexual violence for instance, often encounter a strong liberal bias and rejection from their fellow researchers, as they explore these important social questions. Dissent, and the challenging of established ideas, must be able to occur, for progress to happen.
Ultimately, as SSTAR attendee James Cantor astutely pointed out after the plenary, our field is replicating the modern extremist, bipolar view of political/social attitudes. If the field of sexual research and therapy cannot find ways to thread the needle of these opposing political views, then we are contributing to an echo chamber phenomenon where our research and intervention suggestions never "cross the aisle" and thus may not reach a broader social need. Instead, we will continue to see political ideologies drive social and legal interventions related to sexual matters, in spite of research. And sadly, even successfully implemented sexual health interventions may be abandoned when political winds and administrations shift.
Follow David on Twitter.
