Myth-Busting: Citation Bias
Published on February 15h, 2023
Within psychology, many factors come into play when presenting research subject matter and its authenticity. Such factors, namely citation bias, are commonly seen in psychology teaching materials and can significantly affect the field's credibility if continued to be used. When authors cite research that only supports their claims, findings, or study they were trying to find, it can create a false sense of factuality, swaying audiences into believing said claims, specifically citation bias within the subject of multiple intelligence. Using citation bias within teaching multi-intelligence has created a false rendition of intelligence and learning. Most of the research presented in psychology textbooks on multi-intelligence is rooted in biased citations (Ferguson, Brown & Torres, 2016). When presented as teaching material, the opportunity of dismissing said material rises, posing a threat to the validity of psychology and the people who study it.
Psychology is constantly trying to prove itself as a science, as credible (Ferguson, Brown & Torres, 2016); the teaching of the field is not exempt from this. Continually attempting to affirm credibility can lead to manipulative tactics. While it is understandable why one may use citation bias to prove a point, in addition to understanding the human error of not realizing the mistake, it is incredibly damaging to the credibility of the research and researcher. If given a reason not to believe, some will take such opportunities. Even if all findings within a study are accurate or the researcher is well-regarded. If one source is faulty, how is it known that all are not indeed also faulty; this is especially true when having citation bias within teaching materials.
When providing information to others as a form of teaching material, the likelihood of a student believing the data supplied is high. If evidence supporting the data is biased, it can result in a faulty foundation of knowledge that will be used later in a career. Within a career in psychology, this faulty foundation can interfere with the population they are assisting, potentially being used against them in terms of legitimacy. There is also the possibility of the exposure of invalidity within the material, resulting in learners who were provided this information no longer trusting the source, a highly detrimental result if said sources are textbooks. A lack of trust within the textbook can seep into the trust within the professor, as they were the ones who provided the biased material, to begin with, again creating skepticism for the learning environment of the subject of psychology.
A specific example of citation bias and its effects is the theory of multi-intelligence, a theory with extraordinarily little research to back it and a massive contributor to the misunderstanding of intelligence, especially about the brain and learning (Rousseau, 2020). When reviewing entry-level psychology textbooks, it was found that all of them covered the topic of multi-intelligence, with the citations being biased. 33.3% of citations were entirely biased, 58% only partially, and only 8.3% were deemed unbiased (Ferguson, Brown & Torres, 2016). In the peer-reviewed article "Neuromyths" and Multiple Intelligences (MI) Theory: A Comment on Gardner, 2020', Luc Rousseau breaks down Howard Gardener's idea behind multi-intelligence and some of the faults within its findings. He specifies his dismay for the theory and Gardener's tactics in hiding its lack of evidence. He also touches on how the multi-intelligence theory has taken off within teaching settings and ingrained itself into modern culture, a product of the fabricated credibility and now a perpetrator in the continuing spread throughout society into primary and secondary education.
Not only is the use of citation bias reinforcing the theory's credibility within the academic field, but it is also holding up to the standard of the general population, something that led to the notion that multi-intelligence was a learning style, later debunked by Gardener himself. This multi-intelligence learning style idea was created by the lack of knowledge and the widespread acceptance of the faulty-backed theory (Rousseau, 2020). Allowing the presence of a theory with so much biased research surrounding it to be within a teaching material only further allows for the belief in this information to persist, especially once the information has made its way outside of academia and into the public. The debunking of a theory, notably by its creator, will only further push the distrust in psychology, pushing it further into having to prove the field's credibility.
When presenting information, especially in an academic setting, it is crucial to only state information backed by a completely unbiased source. Citation bias threatens the validity of knowledge, let it be the learning material that holds the inaccurate information, i.e., a textbook or the person who provides such materials. It can further impact the foundation of knowledge within psychology, affecting the public view of the field and continuing the struggle to gain credibility. With the example of multi-intelligence, the detriment to the field via citation bias can be further understood. Through the information provided by the peer-reviewed articles 'Education or Indoctrination? The Accuracy of Introductory Psychology Textbooks in Covering Controversial Topics and Urban Legends About Psychology' written by Christopher J. Ferguson, Jeffrey M. Brown & Amanda V. Torres, and "Neuromyths" and Multiple Intelligences (MI) Theory: A Comment on Gardner,' authored by, Luc Rousseau, it is further shown why continuing to use such tactics will only further deny the field of psychology the validity it is seeking and, in the end, will only damage its credibility.
References
Rousseau, L. (2021). “Neuromyths” and multiple intelligences (MI) theory: A comment on Gardner, 2020. Frontiers in Psychology, 12.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.720706
Ferguson, Brown, J. M., & Torres, A. V. (2018). Education or Indoctrination? The Accuracy of
Introductory Psychology Textbooks in Covering Controversial Topics and Urban
Legends About Psychology. Current Psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.), 37(3), 574–582.
