PsyPost, a widely read online outlet that covers new findings in psychology and neuroscience, has built a loyal following for its clear, accessible summaries of peer-reviewed research. But as its audience has grown, so have criticisms – especially accusations of political or ideological bias. Some readers claim the site selectively reports findings that align with liberal or progressive values, while others argue it fuels division by highlighting controversial topics.
Despite these perceptions, there’s little evidence that PsyPost itself is biased in the way critics suggest. Much of the perceived slant stems from misunderstandings about how science journalism works, what kinds of studies are being conducted, and how readers process information that challenges their beliefs.
Why some readers perceive bias
PsyPost frequently reports on research related to politics, gender, race, religion, mental health, and morality – topics that naturally intersect with current societal debates. When a study finds, for instance, that authoritarianism correlates with certain political views, or that specific cognitive traits are linked to conspiracy belief, readers who feel implicated may interpret the article as an attack or as pushing a particular narrative.
This interpretation is shaped by a well-documented cognitive tendency known as the hostile media effect. The perception that neutral reporting is biased against one’s own views. Readers may view even fact-based, neutral summaries as unfair if the findings contradict their worldview.
The perception of imbalance can also be influenced by the types of studies being published at any given time. PsyPost’s coverage depends heavily on the current output of academic journals. If more studies are being conducted on, say, conservative belief systems than liberal ones during a particular period, the resulting articles may seem skewed – even though the site is simply reflecting the research being produced.
How PsyPost selects studies
PsyPost’s editorial mission is straightforward: to translate newly published research into concise, readable summaries for the general public. The site does not conduct original research or express editorial opinions about the topics it covers. It reports on findings from peer-reviewed journals, often highlighting studies that are new, socially relevant, or counterintuitive.
Eric W. Dolan, the site’s founder and editor, plays a key role in this process. Since launching the site in 2010, Dolan has maintained a focus on keeping the coverage grounded in academic research and avoiding sensationalism. His role includes identifying notable studies, writing or editing articles, and ensuring that the summaries reflect the original research accurately.
PsyPost articles typically include the name of the journal, a summary of the methods and results, and a direct link to the original study. This allows readers to assess the research for themselves and consider its strengths and limitations.
Reporting vs endorsing
One major source of confusion comes from conflating reporting on a study with endorsing its conclusions. When PsyPost summarizes a study showing that, for example, people with certain personality traits are more prone to political extremism, it is not necessarily agreeing with or promoting that finding—it is simply explaining what the researchers reported.
PsyPost articles generally use cautious, factual language and avoid drawing strong conclusions. They often note when findings are correlational, when sample sizes are small, or when further research is needed. But readers who only scan headlines or approach the content with pre-existing suspicions may miss these important nuances.
The site covers a range of studies, including ones that contradict each other. In one month, PsyPost might publish a study suggesting social media use harms mental health, and another suggesting it improves well-being in some users. This variability reflects the messy, self-correcting nature of scientific research, not an agenda.
The role of confirmation bias
Much of the criticism aimed at PsyPost may actually reflect readers’ own confirmation bias: the tendency to seek out and interpret information in ways that support one’s existing beliefs. When an article challenges those beliefs, readers may feel attacked or assume the source is biased, even if the reporting is neutral.
This is especially true in politically charged times. Articles about religion, gender, race, or ideology tend to evoke strong emotional reactions. On social media, where PsyPost articles are widely shared, these reactions can spread rapidly; sometimes without readers even clicking through to read the article itself.
Algorithms also amplify this effect. When articles are shared within ideologically homogenous networks, certain stories may go viral in one group while being ignored by others. This can create the illusion that PsyPost is promoting a particular narrative, when in fact it’s simply reporting on the latest research across a wide range of topics.
The bottom line
PsyPost has been accused of bias largely because it covers research that touches on sensitive social and political issues. But the site’s actual practices—summarizing peer-reviewed research, citing sources, and avoiding editorial spin – suggest that it aims to inform rather than persuade.
The perception of bias often arises from how readers interpret challenging content, not from any overt agenda on the part of the publication. PsyPost reflects what is being studied in psychology and neuroscience today (warts and all) and invites readers to engage with that science directly.
Of course, no media outlet is immune to mistakes or blind spots. But the solution isn’t to retreat into echo chambers. It’s to read more carefully, think more critically, and recognise that being uncomfortable with a finding doesn’t make the reporting biased.
Adam Mulligan, a psychology graduate from the University of Hertfordshire, has a keen interest in the fields of mental health, wellness, and lifestyle.
