Snyderman and Rothman (study)

The Snyderman and Rothman study uncovered supposed liberal bias in reporting on race and intelligence. Mark Snyderman who has written multiple articles for the conservative magazine National Review and Stanley Rothman who has written for National Review and Public Interest, a neoconservative magazine argued in their joint paper in 1988 that media coverage of intelligence-related research is often inaccurate and misleading. They surveyed the opinions of journalists and science editors and intelligence experts (not necessarily with knowledge about race), including scholars in the subfields of psychology, sociology, cognitive science, education, and genetics.

The study
A survey was conducted in 1987 of a broad sample of 1,020 scholars in specialties that would give them reason to be knowledgeable about IQ (but not necessarily about race). The survey was given to members of the American Education Research Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, American Psychological Association, American Sociological Association, Behavior Genetics Association, and Cognitive Science Society. According to the report, regarding the question "The source of black-white difference in IQ":

"This is perhaps the central question in the IQ controversy. Respondents were asked to express their opinion of the role of genetic differences in the black-white IQ differential. Forty-five percent believe the difference to be a product of both genetic and environmental variation, compared to only 15% who feel the difference is entirely due to environmental variation. Twenty-four percent of experts do not believe there are sufficient data to support any reasonable opinion, and 14% did not respond to the question. Eight experts (1%) indicate a belief in an entirely genetic determination."

Robert Sternberg cautioned against supposing that the survey represented anything but opinion saying, "science isn't done by majority rule". Respondents on average called themselves slightly left of center politically, but political and social opinions accounted for less than 10% of the variation in responses. Carol Swain, author of The New White Nationalism reacted with some dismay to the survey, stating:

"At least one important survey suggests that a belief in the biological inferiority of some races in regard to intelligence is more common than generally supposed. Smith College professor Stanley Rothman and Harvard researcher Mark Snyderman surveyed a sample of mostly scientific experts in the field of educational psychology in the late 1980s and found that 53 percent believed IQ differences between whites and African Americans were at least partly genetic in origin, while only 17 percent attributed the IQ differences to environmental factors alone (the remainder either believed the data was currently insufficient to decide the issue or refused to answer the question)."

In the study they argue that media coverage of intelligence related topics was overall inaccurate and misleading. They say the media has misreported the views of the scientific community, especially about the role of genetic and environmental factors in explaining individual and group differences in IQ. Among psychologists, sociologists, cognitive scientists, educators, and geneticists (in 1987), 53% thought that the black-white gap was partially genetic and 17% thought that it was entirely environmental. No poll option was provided to indicate "predominantly (but not entirely) environmental".

Journalists, science editors, and IQ experts were asked their opinion regarding "The source of black-white difference in IQ":



They found that the media regularly presented the views of Stephen Jay Gould and Leon Kamin as representative of mainstream opinion among experts, whereas those who stress that individual and group differences may be partly genetic (e.g., Arthur Jensen) are characterized as a minority. According to Synderman and Rothman, their survey of expert opinion found that the opposite is actually true. The proportion of experts supporting these hypotheses today is unknown.

Snyderman and Rothman suggested that the personal views and preferences of journalists and editors influenced their reporting, especially their selection of which views to present and how to present them. They suggested that the desire of the journalists and editors to advance liberal political goals, which are seen by many as incompatible with a substantial genetic contribution to individual and group differences in IQ, caused them to preferentially report the views of experts who reject the heritability of IQ. However, note that journalists, editors and experts on average agreed on survey questions meant to measure social and political views, indicating that experts had liberal political goals despite their scientific views on IQ.

Reporting on the issues of within and between group heritability was found to be particularly poor. Whereas 94 percent of experts believed there is evidence for significant within-group heritability (with an average estimate of ~60% heritability), news media reports often either erroneously reported that experts believe that genetic control of IQ is total (~100% heritability) or that most experts believed that genetics plays no role (~0% heritability). News reports make the same mistakes (at approximately the same rate) when reporting the expert view on the contribution of genetics to racial-ethnic group differences in IQ. News reports also tended to cite the opinions of only very few experts (such as Jensen, Herrnstein, and William Shockley) to whom they often erroneously attributed a variety of views (e.g., that Blacks are inherently or innately inferior to Whites, that their views have adverse implication for education policy or adverse political implications, or that they are racist). Snyderman and Rothman speculated that the misattribution of views to these individuals stems from attacks on them by public intellectuals, such as Kamin. On the other hand, Rushton and several other prominent researchers funded by the Pioneer Fund have often been criticized on these grounds also by academics.

Criticism
Synderman and Rothman's findings may not point to bias in the media but rather to bias and lack of consensus in the scientific community. Prominent psychologist Robert Sternberg defended the "Entirely environment" view as such in 1995, stating "To the extent that there is a consensus it is certainly not Herrnstein's and Murray's... science isn't done by majority rule...There is a misperception on the part of the public that even if you took a vote and 51% of the scientists said, "I think this is true", that would have any impact on whether it's really true or not. Science is not politics." Psychologist Reginald Wilson states in 1992 "That is what needs to be challenged and that is often what is most resistant. In my discipline, psychology, for example, although we may believe that we live in an enlightened age, most of my colleagues believe indeed that there are substantial genetic components to the lower IQ scores that are on average earned by African-Americans and by Hispanics compared to whites and Asians. And that has been substantiated by surveys of them and of the leading experts in the field. So that is a belief that is held fundamentally and certain practices ensue from that. If that is held to be true then it is not accidental nor is it surprising that 55 percent of the children in classes for the mentally retarded are African-American and Hispanic. That's not accidental. It flows from a belief system.".

The methodology and results of this and other similar studies have been criticized by the Columbia University Journalism Review and Fair.org. In fact, media coverage of the debate about race and intelligence and The Bell Curve in particular was regarded to be insensitive and written to meet the expectations of a white audience by Pamela Newkirk a professor at New York University. Jensen's article on race and IQ in the Harvard Educational Review in 1969 explained that blacks had IQ scores 15 points lower than those of whites and suggested that, because free public education had not diminished this difference, it was likely genetic. This article was a lead story in Newsweek, Life, Time and U.S. News & World Report. Joseph L. Graves contrasted the overwhelming media attention for strong links between race and intelligence with the scant attention paid to contradictory studies in his book The Emperor's New Clothes: biological theories of race at the Millennium The findings of the Snyderman and Rothman study are puzzling when one considers the fact that most anthropologists have come to the conclusion that "race" is not a meaningful concept.

Furthermore, research published in Clinical Genetics, an international journal of genetics and molecular medicine, suggests that propagation by the media of stories that suggest that heritable characteristics are significantly tied to race may further intrench racist ideas. Regardless of the spin placed on such stories, the choice by media professionals to legitimize racial research by publishing articles and presenting such questions as unresolved "debates " seem to demonstrate a bias that, far from being "liberal", is more conservative in character.