Louise (Yunzi) Lu

All Publications

• Taboos and Self-Censorship Among U.S. Psychology Professors. Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science Clark, C. J., Fjeldmark, M., Lu, L., Baumeister, R. F., Ceci, S., Frey, K., Miller, G., Reilly, W., Tice, D., von Hippel, W., Williams, W. M., Winegard, B. M., Tetlock, P. E. 2024: 17456916241252085

  Abstract

  We identify points of conflict and consensus regarding (a) controversial empirical claims and (b) normative preferences for how controversial scholarship-and scholars-should be treated. In 2021, we conducted qualitative interviews (n = 41) to generate a quantitative survey (N = 470) of U.S. psychology professors' beliefs and values. Professors strongly disagreed on the truth status of 10 candidate taboo conclusions: For each conclusion, some professors reported 100% certainty in its veracity and others 100% certainty in its falsehood. Professors more confident in the truth of the taboo conclusions reported more self-censorship, a pattern that could bias perceived scientific consensus regarding the inaccuracy of controversial conclusions. Almost all professors worried about social sanctions if they were to express their own empirical beliefs. Tenured professors reported as much self-censorship and as much fear of consequences as untenured professors, including fear of getting fired. Most professors opposed suppressing scholarship and punishing peers on the basis of moral concerns about research conclusions and reported contempt for peers who petition to retract papers on moral grounds. Younger, more left-leaning, and female faculty were generally more opposed to controversial scholarship. These results do not resolve empirical or normative disagreements among psychology professors, but they may provide an empirical context for their discussion.

  View details for DOI 10.1177/17456916241252085

  View details for PubMedID 38752984

• Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America Clark, C. J., Jussim, L., Frey, K., Stevens, S. T., Al-Gharbi, M., Aquino, K., Bailey, J. M., Barbaro, N., Baumeister, R. F., Bleske-Rechek, A., Buss, D., Ceci, S., Del Giudice, M., Ditto, P. H., Forgas, J. P., Geary, D. C., Geher, G., Haider, S., Honeycutt, N., Joshi, H., Krylov, A. I., Loftus, E., Loury, G., Lu, L., Macy, M., Martin, C. C., McWhorter, J., Miller, G., Paresky, P., Pinker, S., Reilly, W., Salmon, C., Stewart-Williams, S., Tetlock, P. E., Williams, W. M., Wilson, A. E., Winegard, B. M., Yancey, G., von Hippel, W. 2023; 120 (48): e2301642120

  Abstract

  Science is among humanity's 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.

  View details for DOI 10.1073/pnas.2301642120

  View details for PubMedID 37983511

• Human and Algorithmic Predictions in Geopolitical Forecasting: Quantifying Uncertainty in Hard-to-Quantify Domains. Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science Mellers, B. A., McCoy, J. P., Lu, L., Tetlock, P. E. 2023: 17456916231185339

  Abstract

  Research on clinical versus statistical prediction has demonstrated that algorithms make more accurate predictions than humans in many domains. Geopolitical forecasting is an algorithm-unfriendly domain, with hard-to-quantify data and elusive reference classes that make predictive model-building difficult. Furthermore, the stakes can be high, with missed forecasts leading to mass-casualty consequences. For these reasons, geopolitical forecasting is typically done by humans, even though algorithms play important roles. They are essential as aggregators of crowd wisdom, as frameworks to partition human forecasting variance, and as inputs to hybrid forecasting models. Algorithms are extremely important in this domain. We doubt that humans will relinquish control to algorithms anytime soon-nor do we think they should. However, the accuracy of forecasts will greatly improve if humans are aided by algorithms.

  View details for DOI 10.1177/17456916231185339

  View details for PubMedID 37642169

• What do forecasting rationales reveal about thinking patterns of top geopolitical forecasters? INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FORECASTING Karvetski, C. W., Meinel, C., Maxwell, D. T., Lu, Y., Mellers, B. A., Tetlock, P. E. 2022; 38 (2): 688-704

  View details for DOI 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2021.09.003

  View details for Web of Science ID 000760350900026

• False dichotomy alert: Improving subjective-probability estimates vs. raising awareness of systemic risk International Journal of Forecasting Tetlock, P. E., Lu, Y., Mellers, B. A. 2022

  View details for DOI 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2022.02.008