Talk:Social psychology

message: After allowing a full year for discussion on the relocation from Social psychology (psychology) (see Archive 4), I went ahead and made the change. Putting this material front and center on the social psychology page represents the majority approach to the discipline, but also preserves a separate article with a sociological approach on Social psychology (sociology). --Jcbutler (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Shaulan. It has not been my experience that European social psychology is primarily considered to be a sub field of sociology. Do you perhaps have some materials that might substantiate that claim? Cheers Andrew (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move from Social psychology (psychology) 

message: According to the Wikipedia guidelines, a Class A article is "well-organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject, like military history, or elsewhere." This article went through the peer review process (see archives), and was edited in response to that review. It is well referenced and organized, and has stayed quite stable in content for the past year, leading me to believe that it is essentially complete. I'm upgrading the status to Class A. If there are any reasons not to have this article be Class A, let's talk about them on this thread and make the improvements. Thanks  to all of you who have worked on this article and maintained it over the years. --Jcbutler (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: An editor recently downgraded this article to a C without discussion. I'm putting it at a "compromise" quality rating of B, but let's discuss it here if there are specific issues to address. --Jcbutler (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I just noticed the citation requests in the article. I'll look for some additional references in these areas. --Jcbutler (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article quality 

message: I owe an explanation of why I downgraded the article. First of all, we can't use the A class: it's not used for Psychology articles and anyway an article can't qualify for A until it has been through Good Article review. I think the article at present is well-written, and it's great to see work being done on such a centrally important topic. Thanks to Jcbutler and the other recent contributors. However, the referencing seems very scant. The reader can get the impression (falsely, perhaps) that this is a personal essay rather than an encyclopedic summary. I haven't found anything that looks out of place or that I disagree with: like I say, it's good quality text. It's just a matter of making sure it's all referenced. Happy for it to remain at B-class for now. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your response Martin. And I agree, as I look at the article. It needs further referencing. --Jcbutler (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I downgraded the article 

message: Hi all. It seems like this article is getting pretty bloated with social psychological content. My feeling is that the increasingly comprehensive social psychological topic summaries are starting to get in the way of providing a simple and understandable encyclopaedic explanation of what social psychology is.  My suggestion would be to remove this content from this page and replace with a far more succinct list of topics covered (along with the existing history and research sections). This would also help avoid Wikipedia redundancy (e.g. keep perspectives on self-concept on the self-concept page). What are others thoughts? Cheers Andrew (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this comment , which seems a sensible way to develop the article. Could you say more about what should happen to the history section, about what sources or topics should appear there? And do you have an opinion on the discussion further down this page on section headings? MartinPoulter (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive detail and wiki-redundancy? 

message: A respondent to my request for peer review of Motivation crowding theory suggested that I ask for comments and article improvement ideas here. I am most interested in ideas for expansion. Please respond at Talk:Motivation crowding theory. Thank you! Selery (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please review [[Motivation crowding theory]] 

message: I plan to clean up/add citations under the Social Cognition sub-heading. For example: Researchers have found that depressed individuals often lack this bias and actually have more realistic perceptions of reality. [citation needed] I am also interested in ideas for expansion. Plroseman (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Cognition Citation 

message: Hi. I've done some cleanup of the article - quite a bit of it was making the references more consistent. I've tagged it with citation needed, clarify, etc tags where necessary. Allens (talk | contribs) 02:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have done some cleanup 

message: To further the modification of this article, which I am editing as an educational assignment, I am in the process of adding supplemental information from my social psychology text book into the article.  I am currently tinkering with the article in my sandbox, and hope to publish my edit to be reviewed in the next few weeks.  Thank you for any help you can provide me.
:Hi Travis Freetly. Please don’t forget to keep Lova Falk’s comments in mind. An undergraduate text book may not be written at an appropriate level and may therefore not be an appropriate source. Also, I just popped over to your sandbox and had a look at your draft. I do have a couple of concerns. One is related to the citation density of your draft. Is this an area you have had the opportunity to work on yet? I of course understand that it is a work in progress.
:Finally, I would suggest that when you do start working on the article proper that you do so in sections. That is, you don’t perform your changes all in one hit. This will allow other editors to be selective if they have some hesitations about some of your contributions. In other words, it will help them avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Cheers and best of luck Andrew (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Modifications

message: In August 2015 the open science collaboration (based in the Center for Open Science) published a paper in Science (journal)  (the paper appears to be open access), in which they report the outcomes of 100 replications of different experiments from top Cognitive and Social Psychology journals. Depending on how they assessed replicabilityie I(e.g. ndependent p values or aggregate data (meta-analytic) or subjective) they report replicability of social psychology studies between 23% (JPSP P values) and 58% (PsychSci - Metaanalytic) and between 48% p value, JEP and 92% metaanalytic PsychSci for cognitive studies. The paper is (to my judgement) be very carefully constructed and very thorough. It is not easy to interpret these percentages by the way as there is hardly any data from other fields about replication success rates. The only indications come from cell biology (see the science paper) where they are talking about percentages as low as 11% to 25% (probably based on p value alone). If this is indicative for all sciences (but I would not hazard to do so) it appears that psychology is neither much worse, nor much better than most. But that would be my own original interpretation and hence not useful for Wikipedia.</br>
I think we should construct a brief section on the outcomes of this programme / paper for this article. I will think about it - but it may take some time (busy) and should be done with due attention to nuance, anyone else is welcome to start it. Arnoutf (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Open science collaboration recent science publication

message: Hello social psychology editors,  I was looking the article over today and see that there is a new addition in July, 2015 that :  "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Seduction, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to Seduction, Seduction literature, the Playboy (lifestyle)."  Unlike social psychology, the Wikiproject focus is on only one particular kind of behavior (seduction) and a lifestyle (the playboy lifestyle).  The Wikiproject is inactive.   I would like the social psychology editors also to know that this Wikiproject is closely related to the seduction community, which is controversial, and one of it's main leaders characterized as misogynist and hateful to women by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  Among other complaints about the group is that it uses pseudo-science to forward it's claims  If the Wikiproject Seduction is attempting to falsely show alignment with Social Psychology, it would not be an appropriate and this link to the WikiProject should be severed. Cityside189 (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be argued that seduction techniques draw on interpersonal psychology, which would fall under social psychology. I know of no Wikipedia policy or guideline that forbids a project to claim articles. Even if the claim would be utterly nonsensical if editors in a project maintain their claim I am not sure we can remove it. One way forward might be a community agreement that the project is no sufficient addition to the Wikipedia project and should therefore be discontinued, but that is another thing. How to disband a project? Arnoutf (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial group linking to Social Psychology

message: The second sentence begins "In this definition, the word scientific" but the first sentence, which gives us a definition of social psychology, does not use the word scientific. Vorbee (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Second sentence

message: Presently, the "History" section includes the assertion that Triplett's (1898) paper was the first to be published in this area. Stroebe (2012) identifies work published by Féré (1887), and Binet and Henri (1894) that precedes Triplett's by some years, so this claim seems to be incorrect.
Reference: Stroebe, W. (2012). The truth about Triplett (1898), but nobody seems to care. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(1), 54--57.
157.157.140.235 (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the paper by Wolfgang Stroebe (who is a highly esteemed prof emeritus in soc-psy). His opinion may definitely count. But even worse, the claim that Triplett was first is seemingly backed by a reference, but that is a reference to the Triplett paper which is (1) unlikely to claim it is the first and (2) even if it were making that claim, it would be a primary source for that claim. So developing the section around Stroebe's analyses seems to be relevant in any case. Please go ahead. Arnoutf (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triplett's (1898) paper on social facilitation as the first published article in social psychology