Ideological (a)Symmetry in Research Evaluations: The Case of Research on Ideological Versus Racial Group Differences

ABSTRACT This research investigates how political ideology shapes laypeople's evaluation of scientific studies examining cognitive differences between groups. In three experiments in Germany and the United States, participants evaluated identical research reports that varied only in the intergroup context—racial (Blacks/Whites) or ideological (liberals/conservatives)—and in which group appeared cognitively superior. Leftists/Liberals consistently rated studies favouring liberals over conservatives as more methodologically sound, less biased and more worthy of pursuit than parallel studies reporting Whites outperforming Blacks. Only White US conservatives (but not German rightists or Black US conservatives) showed a ‘mirror image’ pattern. Although both ideological groups’ research evaluations aligned with ideological in‐group favouritism, only left‐leaning participants tuned their evaluations to what they deemed socially acceptable research. These results contribute to debates over ideological (a)symmetry in lay assessments of contentious research, demonstrate its context dependence and expose a left–right asymmetry in the motivational processes underlying judgements of controversial science.