Talk:Social psychology/Archive 2

message: I truly believe Vygotsky's ideas are rooted in Social Psychology, and he should be included, or at least linked to, in this article.  Wiki has him listed as a "developmental psychologist" favoring the "sociocultural approach".  Though his work has only been introduced to the West within the last forty years, his theory of Scaffolding is (or should be) a basic tenet of Social Psychology.
: I added a tiny bit more flesh to the Vygotsky mention. Feel free to add to it. Lucidish 03:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lev Vygotsky 

message: I have a some suggestions for improving the social psychology entry.  Firstly, the statement that "psychological social psychology" is more like personality psychology is erroneous.  Both SSP & PSP are similar to persoanlity psychology in virtue of their studying the internal processes of individuals.  Some SSP perspectives like Identity Theory are major similarities with major personality theories, like Walter Mischel's Social Cognitive theory.  The study of the self in general and Self-esteem in particular is equally important in all three areas.  The statement should be taken and personality psychology placed in the "relation to other disciplines" section.
Also, the use of the House 1977 reference is outdated.  As Fine, House, and Cook (1995) state in Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology, p. x, "The three faces of social psychology (House 1977) are at peace, a reality of which each chapter gives evidence through integrative substance and diverse references."  Granted, there still remains a vivid distinction between SSP and PSP, symbolic interactionism should be subsumed under SPS, not presented as a subfield independnet of SSP; especially since no reasons are given in the article to consider it distinct from SSP.
In "relation to other fields" social philosophy is listed in the beginning of the section and then not included in the more detailed bulleted section that follows.  Perhaps the author confused 'social philosophy' with 'philosophy of social sciences'.  Two very distinct disciplines and neither of which has a place in an article on social psychology.  A quick look into the Journal of Social Philosophy (published by Blackwell on the behalf of the North American Society for Social Philosophy) shows that most of their articles focus on axiological questions in political philosophy, philosophy of law, and ethics.  One is hard-pressed to find any articles that deal with the ontological questions that SSP and PSP answer empirically.  As for the philosophy of social sciences, that area is pertinent to the social sciences at large and belongs in an article on the social sciences or sociology.  There are specific criticisms of social psychology coming from authors like Gergen, Parker, Shotter, McGuire, O'Sears and Pancer coming from both a positivist, critical, and social constructionist perspective.  Those critiques would be pertinent to an article on SP in a section called "Criticisms".
The section on "general research interests" mentions that "European textbooks" include ideology as a variable of research.  This is simply false. Factors like Social Dominance Orientation, Altemeyer's Right-Wing Authoritarianism, Benevolent Sexism, Modern Racism, Symbolic Racism, and Bem's Sex-Role Inventory all measure a person's endorsement of a particular ideology.  The study of ideological impacts on social behavior is alive and well in American Social Psychological research.
In the section on "Underlying theoretical issues" mention is made of methodological wars in sociology.  That information should be moved to either sociology or a social sciences entry since it is more general in content.  There are specific criticisms being made in SP as I mentioned above which should be included in a criticisms section.  The Cote & Levine citation has little relevance to an SP article since they are developmental researchers.  Their research would be more pertinent to an article on social & personality development.  The Slife & Grant, 1999 article has no reference at the bottom of the page. I looked it up.  The article is called: Slife, B. D., & Gantt, E. (1999). Methodological pluralism: A framework for psychotherapy research. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 55 (12), 1 – 13.  This is Clinical Psychology article and thus should be placed in an article on Clinical Psychology.
The second paragraph in the section is very confusing.  I think the author meant to say a debate between deductive theory and inductive (or baconian empiricism or 'grounded' theory if you prefer).  Positivism and phenomenalism are not mutually exclusive, Hume and Carnap were both positivists and phenomenalists.  Regardless, this point is pertinent to SP as it does reflect a difference between ethnomethologists, phenomenologists, and some SI folks on one hand and more deductive theorists like the social exchange and rational choice theorists on the other.  This should be included a constrast between the two in the theories section. 
Nominalism and realism are abstract concepts that are more appropriate for a philosophical article and add very little to the point made above.  This particular paragraph should be removed.
The Structure-Agency debate is more pertinent to an article on macro-sociology or sociological realism which either defends or attacks the premise that macro-sociological phenomena is irreducible to individual components.  It's not appropriate for a social psychology article.  SP focused on the internal processes and social behavior of individuals.  Macro-sociological structures are studied to the degree that they are causal factors that influence those internal processes and individuals.  Whether those macro-sociological structures are dependent on or independent of individual behaviors is a separate issue that should be addressed in an article on sociology, sociological realism, or structuration.
The free will/determinism debate also has no place here.  I have read the Oxford Handbook of Free Will which compiled all the major theorists on the debate and I don't recall any of them suggesting the compatibilist question to be resovlable by empirical methods.  I believe there was consensus among them that only analytic methods could resolve the problem.  However, without a citation, it's difficult to know where the author got his rather bizarre notion.
:Thank you for your suggestions. I'll enact the ones about personality psychology and symbolic interactionism. House's use of SI as a third discipline never really did sit right with me.
:Due to recent conflicts, "social philosophy" was changed to "philosophy of the social sciences" in order to really only get to the issues that are important for social psychology. Again, I must stress the importance of philosophy of the social sciences, in order to make methodological issues intelligible to the reader, and to give some underlying insight into the interests involved. In the Blackwell Companion to Philosophy, you will find an essay on the Philosophy of the Social Sciences, which includes the structure-agency debate mentioned presently, but uses different terms to describe it ("holism" and "individualism"). It includes a number of other issues, but I'm focused on only keeping the relevant ones at hand. Mentioning PoSS was not meant as a purely critical exercize, as with Gergen etc., but rather to shed insight which are very relevant to Social Psych.
:I think, regarding ideology, the main question is whether or not ideology is a separate and distinct social phenomenon from the other three levels mentioned. But I don't know for sure, since I didn't write that part in.
:I'll admit that "methodology wars" might be worth removing, since it does appear to be specific to sociology and sociological social psychology. But two things. First, Cote and Levine's comments did not seem to have to do with merely developmental issues, but with the entire enterprise of social psychology. Second, development (with respect to social psychology) almost seems like the paradigm center of social psychology on the whole, since it treats both socialization and biological growth as core salient features of analysis. In other words, what's good for developmental social psychology, is likely good for social psychology in general; or at least that's the way it seems to me. The task, it seems, is not to simply dismiss these things, but to examine the literature and see if they're actually given any treatment short of a few articles here and there.
:You're right about positivism and phenomenalism; there may likely have been a mixup between phenomenalism and phenomenology. A third axis to include would be the extent to which the interpretation of text (such as of written testimony from subjects) is or isn't considered objective (another thing you can find in the Blackwell book mentioned).
:I'll agree to remove the nominalism/realism bit, but I disagree with your take on structure-agency. It translates into a social-psychological concern over the source of action and whether it is based upon socialization or is in some way generative or creative.
:Types like Benjamin Libet supposedly placed free will up to empirical strutiny, and I have read a paper that proposed (in response to Libet's work) that there was a "preconscious free will". I will look both up. Really, it's not bizarre in the slightest. Lucidish 23:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, the reference to Slife and Gantt was removed by user 69.111.105.47 in their edit, for reasons that shall no doubt forever be mystifying. Lucidish 17:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Suggestions 

message: I can't think of how such a section could be written... what is the origin of social psychology? Chimps use it. Bugs have social psychology. Sure there are people who can be considered social psychologists in history, but the determination of if they are social psychologists or not is often fuzzy. I say we keep this section out until we have at least a paragraph of information for it. Sam Spade 00:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's meant as a history of the discipline as it is known and understood today, not a history of social psychological acts. Chimps etc therefore don't matter. Philosophers have talked about psychological (and probably social psychological) issues, and they deserve credit, but we just take that to mean that they pre-date the discipline in its current form. Lucidish 01:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Some new and inaccurate information has been added to this article.  Firstly, the definition of internal validity nows states: "meaning that they show a clear and  unconfounded correlation between variables".  That is simply FALSE...correlational research is low in internal validity and experimental research is mutually exclusive with correlational research.  Also, Brehm, Kassin, & Fein (2002)pg. 43 define internal validity as "the degree to which there can be reasonagble certainly that the independent variables in an experiment caused the effects obtained on the dependent variables."  Smith and Mackie (2000) pg. 34 define internal validity as "the extend to which it can be concluded that changes in the independent variable actually caused changes in the dependent variable." Fazio (2003) pg. 36 defines internal validity as "the extend to which cause-and-effect conclusions can validly be made in a study."  The meaning across all there works is the same: the degree to which we can be certain that there is a causal relationship between the variables.  Because experiments control for confounds and systematically manipulate variables, they are high in internal validity.  Because correlational research does not do this, but merely measures the association between variables, it is low in internal validity.  This is a critical difference. 
:Sorry, but you have written a great deal, and I am busy, so must respond in interruptive spurts. From Michener: "We say that the findings of a study have internal validity if they are free from contamination by extraneous variables." Are you saying this textbook is wrong? 
:Quite frankly, on the face of it, I think one would be very hard pressed to find any difference between the definition provided and those you provided. Causality is a metaphysical claim which we attribute to explain correlations. "Correlation is not necessarily causation" is the popular maxim, but oftentimes missing from the clichee is the counterclaim: that causation is necessarily demonstrated by correlations. Lucidish
Secondly, the definition of automatic processing given in the "important terms and concepts" is incorrect.  Automatic processing is NOT "our intuitive or instinctual subconscious thoughts and feelings." This definition blurs the distinction between content/process and implies automatic processing is biologically innate when in fact, content that is automatically processed is merely overlearned.  When content is automatically processed it is activated spontaneously by cues in the environment, requires very little working memory (its effects are more noticable when cognitive load is high), and without interference from controlled processes (usually when ability is low or control isn't needed), it drives our behaviorial responses.  
The very same content can also be processed via controlled processes (many times in response to conflict detected between the automatic response and the appropriate/correct response).  Controlled processing requires more working memory (its effects are more noticable when cognitive load is low) and more processing time (response deadlines usually inhibit its effects).  
There are also distinct neurological correlates for automatic and controlled processes.  When people are engaged in more controlled processes, there is more activation in their prefrontal cortex, which has been shown to be associated with working memory.  Automatic processes are more efficient in that they use the brain less to accomplish tasks.  See the following website for further elaboration: http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/articles/autoskills/index.htm
Also, the description of cognitive dissonance is also incomplete.  The definition says contradicting  cognitions compel the mind to reach consonance (and does a pretty job of describing the 3 ways this can be done), but does not include the critical motivational component that compels the mind to seek consonance, i.e. "discomfort".  Because the motivational component was derived from tension-reduction theory, this is very important sequence in the dissonance theory.
In the theory section, "Reinforcement Theory" is equated with classical and operant conditioning.  This is simply not true.  Reinforcement does not equate with C.C. and is only one of three components of operate conditioning (the other 2 being extinction and punishment).
I also fail to understand why Attribution, Behaviorism are being represented as constituted 2 of the 4 major theories of social psychology (that's the inference I make from their coming first and being exluded from the other category at the bottom).  Evo-Psych and SI are indeed important today's social psychology (whether psychological or sociological), but attribution theory and behaviorism are relatively less prominent and definitely have less importance to the field today than does Social Cognition.  Social exchange theory is also fairly prominent in both SSP & PSP today.  If these theories are going to reflect the range of influence that they have in current research programs, Attribution and Behaviorism should be placed in the bottom "other" section and Social Cognition and Social Exchange take their place in the top four.
Also, when it comes to today's SSP, expectation state theory represent the significant third strand  of research (other than SI & Exchange), it definitely should be included in the list of theories represented in the list.  
As for PSP, motivational approaches have gained prominence.  This is reflected in the new lists of "core social motives" we find in Fiske (2004), Smith & Mackie's (2000) 3 motivational principles and specific motivational theories like Terror Management Theory (Pysczcynski, Greenberg, & Solomon, 1997).  Also, social identity theory is generating research across the board in areas of the self, social influence, intergroup relations, and impression formation.  In light of its growth as an over-arching theory in PSP, it too should be given some notice in the article. If these fields are going to be adequately represented in these articles, the research and approaches discussed should be comprehensive and up to date.
: I defer all these points to Sam Spade, since they largely address his additions. Lucidish 22:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Suggestions 

message: This page goes into way too much detail on the Elaboration likelihood model.  The ELM already has its own Wiki page, so it is redundant to go into this much detail on the main SP page.
IMHO, the page focuses too much on the past.  It might be nice to have a brief section on the more recent topics in both PSP and SSP.
.Solitary refinement 02:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  way too ELM heavy 

message: The original intent behind removal of material on social psychology months ago was to trim down the article, as it was too large. Now, the article has grown to approximately the same size, and so, has the same deficiency. It may need splitting. Lucidish 00:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloated article? 

message: Summary: There is a call to  split this article into two or more different articles accessed via a disambiguation page. The purpose of the split would be to separate Sociological Social Psychology from Psychological Social Psychology. It has been argued on this page that each discipline approaches social psychology from a very different perspective, and a combined article does not do justice to either side. -Nicktalk 19:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: any reason? -Nicktalk 23:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment. So far, short of further clarification, it appears that four users endorse a radical split (i.e., involving making this a mere disambiguation page instead of an overhauled summary), versus four who don't. Yet six people (myself included) advocate specialized articles for PSP and SSP, versus two who evidently don't. Lucidish 21:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think that social psychology should be a disambiguation page, I think that there should be a disambiguation link at the top of this page that would send readers to the SSP page if they so desire. These are seperate fields, but one (PSP) is considerably more noteworthy than the other. Are there any other instances in science or elsewhere where this occurs (e.g. two sciences share the same name but have perspectives and research which is quite different)? However, that being said, I would still prefer a split and disambiguation page to the status quo or to an overhaul plus specialized articles. Irongargoyle 15:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have a look at Risk Analysis. I definitely do not want something like this for this page. My overhaul with specialized pages was more aimed at advocating a structure not unlike that in the Netherlands page, where the main information is summarised on this page, with specialised articles for details (e.g. Social Psych Methods - for IAT, etc). Arnoutf 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Given the above comments, it seems that we've reached a near-consensus to create specialized pages, but also to keep this as a generic page. Due to evidently strong, intractible sentiments held towards both myself and my views by some users, I will not personally help in making the transition. However, if someone else wishes to engage in the task, so be it. Lucidish 01:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article split

message: : I am, indeed, out of step with the evident consensus. Thus, I concede that I'm out of line: Wikipedia is about the academic consensus, not my opinion. And, thus, I have conceded the idea of creating seperate SSP-PSP articles (though I would like more than just a disambiguation page to take the place of this one). But I still have to reply to the above.
# This is not the expression of a personal agenda. By "personal agenda", Anon might mean one of two things: first, that I am writing for personal gain; second, that my views are idiosyncratic/irrelevant. 
##I trust that the reader is sensible enough to see that I do not gain any benefits, social or economic, for posting anonymous opinions about obscure topics on a very public internet forum. If, as Anon says, my intentions are good, as in sincere, then they must not be of the personal sort. Moreover, it is both an intellectual concern, and, at the very least, a reasonable concern which I have raised; and, assuming Anon thinks I am writing in good faith, it is peculiar that they would also think my words are written for personal gain, which would be in bad faith.
##Based on Anon's description of his views, it seems that I have a philosophical disagreement with Prof. Burke about the relationship between Soc. and Psych. For methodological individualism, sociology is a discipline that requires deflation. Emphasizing the psychological basis for large-scale patterns is a step in that direction. I hope the reader notices two implications which may be drawn from the above statement. First, that they note not just that I idiosyncratically believe in MI, but that there is a well-established perspective (MI), which at least seems to provide grounds for an attack on Burke's views. Second, that it is a position in the philosophy of social science (MI) which provides the break in views -- thus undercutting any hope of considering this to be irrelevant to the subject (and hence to the wiki).
# Second, I still must disagree most emphatically on the content of the dispute. I will repeat my reasons, because they are, and have been so far, largely neglected by the commentators. This consensus of the incompatibility of disciplines has been so far based on either an argument about the difference between PSP and SSP research societies, or on an argument about substantial independence between the two.
## Persistence on this line, so long as it is based on who talks to who, is transparently sophomoric and institutionally dysfunctional. It is obvious that content is relevant, while networking and namedropping is not. This is not just me making drama, but a point about functional and dysfunctional practices in academic research. Without communication between closely related disciplines, researchers risk reinventing the wheel. This is dysfunctional.
##Moreover, the consensus is demonstrably wrong if it is predicated on an incommensurability of the material between the disciplines. I have already given examples of the philosophy connection; I'm afraid I cannot go any further in convincing Anon on that score, since they have evidently not been convinced (though have also not by any stretch of the imagination shown that their disagreement is based more on reason than on passion). In any case, I'll leave philosophy behind for the moment. Instead, to hit two birds with one stone, I will give examples of the SSP-PSP connection, and especially, give an idea about how SSP and Soc. may be, in many instances, dependent on PSP.
### the deviance amplifying process (SSP) relies upon reactance (PSP).
### moral entrepeneurs (Soc.) cannot be explained without studies of persuasion (PSP), perhaps best understood in terms of social impact theory (PSP).
### personality theories (PSP) may explain role-based theories, as in the work of McCall/Simmons and Stryker (SSP).
### Dramaturgy (Goffman, Soc.) and many forms of socialization are meaningless without a notion of scripts (roughly in PSP language, "Event schemas"). Lucidish 02:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The unreasonable consensus 

message: There's a slight discrepancy in the description of PSP in the opening paragraphs and the "relevant academic fields" section below it.  In the opening paragraphs PSP is described as a discipline that looks at the interaction of internal variables and the immediate social situation.  I would agree with this definition since most of the research in JPSP could be characterized in this manner and most PSPs view Kurt Lewin, who I credit with developing this perspective, as their intellectual forefather.
In the relevant academic fields section, PSP is described as being focused on the "mental states of individuals".  This is not characteristic of PSP as a whole.  Some areas of PSP research like close relationships and small groups do not look at cognitive variables at all.  The graphic in the same section makes this mischaracterization too.  I think both should be altered to truly reflect the interactional focus of PSP.
: Fixed. Lucidish 17:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy 

message: I have created an article at Social psychology (psychology). It has an underconstruction tag and is very sparse at the moment. We need to start filling it in with the basics of psychological social psychology. Many of the specific research areas and theories in PSP have their own articles (e.g. social influence, cognitive dissonance, etc), so we need not duplicate them, but can simply provide the wikilinks. Those who are interested in helping out, have at it! -Nicktalk 04:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those who are interested in helping out, have at it! Anyone? -Nicktalk 23:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I plan on contributing, but now is definitely not a good time (maybe in a couple of weeks).  I'm glad this is finally getting off the ground! Solitary refinement 04:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social psychology (psychology) article created 

message: Substituted at 20:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment