An example of psychological science’s failure to self-correct.

This paper illustrates the impact of the human element in the scientific process by presenting the history of Broverman, Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz, and Vogel (1970), one of the most highly cited papers in psychology. Broverman et al. stimulated remarkable interest in sex bias among mental health professionals. Several articles published in major psychology journals demonstrated the paper's fatal flaws in the 2 decades following its publication. Nonetheless, Broverman et al. was accepted with little resistance. Broverman et al. continues to be cited as empirical support for the sex bias hypothesis among mental health professionals. Science, as a method of inquiry, is intended to be self-correcting and empirically driven. Emotional neutrality and high evidential standards are norms that govern the method, making science, as Skinner (1953) declared, "a willingness to accept facts even when they are opposed to wishes" (p. 12). Scientists are, therefore, often viewed as objective agents, liberated from personal biases and passions in the pursuit of objective investigation (Mahoney, 1979). However, analyses of the process of science—the application of the method by humans—suggest that science is subject to the same preconceptions, sociopolitical pressures, and passions that influ- ence other human constructions (Kuhn, 1962; Turner, 1967). For instance, Hull (1988) described how different theoretical perspec- tives and personality styles influenced the changes in the literature on biological classification during the middle of the 20th century. More recently, Redding (2001) argued that psychological research has been impacted by a politically liberal bias, in that unpopular and conservative viewpoints within psychology are not likely to be published. This paper presents the history of one of the most highly cited papers in psychology to illustrate that the often-overlooked human element in the scientific process— the scientist as both an empirical investigator and consumer— influences the conclusions reached from the available evidence. In 1970, a paper authored by Broverman, Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz, and Vogel, appeared in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. In their study, Broverman and her col- leagues administered a questionnaire to a sample of mental health professionals. The sample was divided into three groups: one group that rated the traits of a healthy woman; another group that rated the traits of a healthy man; and a final group that rated the traits of a healthy adult. The analyses of Broverman et al. sug- gested to the researchers that health professionals' ratings of a healthy man were similar to that of a healthy adult (sex unspeci- fied), whereas the ratings of a healthy woman were significantly different than those of a healthy adult. Broverman et al. concluded that there was a double standard in how mental health clinicians viewed men and women; more specifically, that the conceptual- ization of mental health for persons in general (i.e., the healthy adult) was biased in favor of men. The Broverman et al. (1970) paper had a swift and substantial impact on the mental health field. A review in the early 1980s took note of the widespread attention Broverman et al. was gathering: The frequently cited study by Broverman, Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz and Vogel (1970) on sex role-related standards of mental health has had a major influence in shaping inquiry into sex bias in clinical practice. Not only did a rash of essentially similar investiga- tions follow closely on its heels, but the study itself has been cited almost religiously in most subsequent papers on bias. (Davidson, 1983, p. 170)