I was asked a while ago to write a comment on an article by Jared Bartels in Psychology Learning & Teaching.

This is the abstract of the article by Jared that I reacted to:

There have been dozens of papers published on the misrepresentation of psychological studies and theories (e.g., omitting criticisms) presented in introductory textbooks. Authors of these papers have offered numerous explanations for the errors including limited space for covering criticisms and the desire among textbook authors to “sell” psychological science to an introductory audience. In the present article, several studies and theories, most of which have been identified in previous research as misrepresented in introductory psychology textbooks, are reviewed. The possibility of ideological bias contributing to the misrepresentation is considered. The bias in introductory psychology is considered in the context of wider concerns about the consequences of political homogeneity in the field. Suggestions for reducing bias in introductory psychology textbooks and courses are offered.

My comment is titled What if Ideology is Rather Just Being Lazy? As I strongly believe in open science, and because the Dutch government does, too, you can read my comment here for free.

This is the abstract:

In this reply to the article “Indoctrination in Introduction to Psychology” by Jared M. Bartels, true to Occam’s razor, the argument is made that there is maybe an easier explanation for the mistakes often found in textbooks: laziness. Different examples are presented to make this argument.