Talk:Social psychology/Archive 2

Lev Vygotsky

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)

new post

Is there any resolution to the above debate in sight? There are many interesting parts in the article, but it is seriously chaotic. I have written "GROUP":DEFINITION AND DEVELOPMENT ( with sections on USAGE, NON-GROUPS, AND SIGNIFICANCE) as a WP independent article.Apparently some WP editors think that it should be merged with SOCIOLOGY (GROUP). I find that article quite shallow and oppose the move primarily because of the difference in perspecitve, philosophy, and research methodologies from sociology. My article is built around Muzafer Sherif's work, including Robber's Cave, but adding ideas from animal and human social behaviors including territory and dominance.I would(reluctantly) find psychological social psychology a more comfortable site.However I would be even more reluctant to be caught in this long going debate, and confusing atmosphere.68.220.47.4 20:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're referring to the dialogue on American vs. broader social psychology, not Lev Vygotsky. The discussion, or what there was of it, was resolved when the other users left it. Without more advice and discussion, it's impossible to make any more changes.

I'm not sure why the group/merger conflict is relevant to this article. If you're expressing the idea of merging the "group D&D" article with this one, I'd not recommend it. The SP article is a bit topheavy as-is (which is presumably what you mean by "chaotic"); if anything, much of its substance needs to be offloaded to other articles, presumably like group (sociology) or group D&D. Lucidish 23:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Social Psychology??

I see there is a call for experts on this page. I am a graduate student in social psychology, and I am perplexed by what I am reading. Is this an article on Social Psychology or Philosophy? If you are trying for social psych, this is way off the mark. I see that there are a select few people who are responsible for creating this page, but I also see that neither of them have training in social psychology. The talk page reveals somewhat of an argument over the direction of this page, but it seems that trained social psychologists are being overruled by philosophy undergrads. Some friendly advice (and I really do mean this in a friendy-advice sort of way)--perhaps the philosophy should be toned down and the article handed over to those with training in actual social psychology. 24.248.42.6 07:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The call for experts was placed there by me, because I want expert advice. All those above essentially ran away before backing up their bold claims; I'd like a serious look at the article by serious people.

The philosophical foundations section is miniscule compared to the bulk of the article, and only includes the relevant issues. The bulk of the article involves research that done independently of philosophical studies, on the basis of social psychology texts (which have been cited, if you care to read). Lucidish 16:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

A few statistics and things to consider.

The article's length at this time is 8,432 words (excluding the "See also", "bibliography" and "further reading" sections). The "social philosophy" subsection is 428 words (about 5.07% of the total article). The "social psychological theories" section - the centerpeice to the article -- is 6,087 words total (that's about 77% of the total article). Compare this to the social philosophy section's 5%. The "psychological elements of collectives" section, which is ostensibly the most 'sociological' subject of inquiry within social psychology, runs up to 1,062 words. That is to say, it is one-sixth of the material that we may consider to be in the social theory section, compared to five-sixths of what seem to be social psychology that is more bent towards the individual. Whatever portions of the 'theories' section may be considered "psychological social psychology" or "sociological social psychology" may only be found peicemeal and with some effort, since those theories that would fit with either approach are distributed across all subsections without any marking or identification. Having done so, I've found (in the theories section) approx. 47 different general paragraphs/topics. Of that rough-and-ready number, 19 have nothing to say about the PSP / SSP distinction, which is to say, they don't bias one towards either structural or agentic explanations (i.e.: hedonistic theory of action, spindle neurons, dominance orientations); 6 are completely PSP, or indicate a bias towards an internal locus of control (i.e., Maslow's heirarchy of needs, social comparison theory, collective/aggregate behaviors); 12 are completely SSP, or indicate a bias towards an external (social) locus (i.e., constructivism, social behaviorism, social identity theory); 10 feature both SSP and PSP explanations (i.e., Vygotsky, identity formation strategies, helping models). To me, this suggests that perhaps more agentic additions should find their way into the article, but that there is no basis for bifurcating the article along PSP and SSP lines without destroying it entirely, since more neutral explanations (SP, SSP&PSP) vastly outnumber more partisan ones (PSP, SSP).

Lucidish 22:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

All of the above no longer exists. See the discussion below. Lucidish 04:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Actual Social Pscyhology being what? The American version of it? IMHO Social Psychology shouldn't and cannot be separated from the wider philosophical perspective of social sciences in general. I have studies worth a graduate student as well and In my view this article could be (with a little extra work) a substitute for many text books out there.

I just can't seem to point what is missing in the article, could you do it for us? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.63.136 (talk • contribs)

More thoughts

I see the debate over this article is starting to heat up again. Unfortunately, I’ve had little time to make substantive edits, and this article is rapidly being updated. I’ve made several previous comments on the talk page expressing my displeasure over this article, and I’ve been watching it closely for some time now. I do think the article has improved (thanks largely to Lucidish), but I have some suggestions.

First, this article is too long. Wikipedia suggests that articles be no longer than 32K, and this article is 61K. There is a lot of stuff here, and I think it needs to be more concise. First, Lucidish’s analysis of the article is very helpful, and it pointed out something to me. There is a good bit of “social philosophy” in the article, and it probably doesn’t need to be there. There is a separate article on Social Philosophy, and I think many of the more philosophical aspects of this article could be moved over there. We can still maintain the link between SPsych and SPhil, but we shouldn’t be redundant. This is an encyclopedia article, and we should be careful to only discuss the actual topic, and leave other topics (even very closely related ones) to their own article.

Next, the section “Relation to other fields” could be merged with the “subfields” section, as they both address similar issues.

We should be careful with the language used. The section on “perspectives” in social psychology mostly mentions theories, and there is a separate section for major theories. Perhaps the language should changed to “evolutionary perspective,” “cognitive perspective” and the like. Then, if there are specific theories to discuss, they can be discussed in the theory section.

There is a section labeled “angles of research…” How is an “angle of research” similar/different from a “perspective” or a “methodology”? Could these sections be merged?

There are MANY theories listed in the article. Perhaps they could be summarized more concisely. Or, some of the “smaller” theories could be eliminated. Or, the major theories could be given their own pages, and we simply list the wikilinks.

And, while I enjoy many of the illustrations, they also seem to mess up the “flow” of the page; visually, the page is “cluttered.” Maybe we could resize/remove/reorganize some of the images.

There are many smaller issues, but I need some time to formulate potential remedies. Ideally, I would see this article with the following structure:

• Definition of SP / Summary (for those who don’t want to go into great detail)
• Historical Roots of SP
• Perspectives/Methodologies/Angles of SP
• Major Theories (and I mean MAJOR).
• Links to related articles (theories, studies, disciplines, etc).

This is shaping up to be very comprehensive, and that is good, but this shouldn’t be a textbook replacement, it should be an encyclopedia article. (BTW, I would really like to see someone start a comprehensive social psych online text—perhaps at wikibooks?) Nick 21:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. I agree with just about all of your positive claims. You're quite right that the article is of monstrous size. The plan should be to take the subsections in the 'theories' section and put them into separate articles. The images will probably find their way into other articles in so doing. But before all that, the article in its present form should be shipped over to Wikibooks, and then I can whittle away at it.

Good point about subfields/relation to fields. I don't know why they were separated.

Another good point re: perspectives, angles. Also a good idea to do a history section. I'm ill-equipped in that regard; someone else will have to fill it in.

Now. Up until now, I did not mean to be heated. I was merely confused at how plainly inaccurate some comments are. For example, there is barely any social philosophy at all, and if my bout of stats above says anything at all, it says that. Anyway, the social philosophy section is there to cast light on the PSP/SSP distinction, and to treat some issues having to do with research method. The questions about methodology are essential to social psychology as a discipline, in the sense that they are internal to the discipline of SP, without being any less a matter of philosophy for the sake of that.

Frankly, what I'm seeing here can only be described as an outburst of indignation for mentioning philosophy at all. This is unwelcome, since it betrays a lack of understanding of the relevant sections of social psychology. I'm confused as to what the force or intuition is behind such arguments. But I am not left much room to speculate: the position of "I don't recognize this material, so it must be irrelevant" can be observed in many of the previous comments. Not to slight you, but I asked for expert opinions, not vapid conceits. They create indigestion. Lucidish 00:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I’m a little confused by this whole social philosophy thing. I have no problem with philosophy, I’ve just never heard of SPhil, my colleagues have never heard of it, and here is why. Before you go on, however, know that this was an open attempt to learn more about social philosophy, and none of this is meant to be mean-spirited, just thorough.

First, I used the Social Science Citation Index to find the most prominent journals on “Social Psychology.” The SSCI looks at how much influence various journals have on future research, and includes all scientific journals in the social sciences, including European, Asian and North American journals, and also includes journals from Sociology, Psychology and some from Philosophy as well. I then searched six of the most influential journals for any articles containing the term “social philosophy” in the title/description/abstract. I searched the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology Review, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Social Psychology Quarterly, British Journal of Social Psychology, and the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. The term “social philosophy” did not come up once.

I then turned to social psychology textbooks. I took a look at six of the most widely used “Social Psychology” textbooks (according to Amazon.com): Taylor, Peplau & Sears; Kenrick, Neuberg & Cialdini; Baron, Byrne & Branscombe; Brown; Nisbett, Gilovitch & Keltner; Aronson, Wilson & Akert. As I teach Social Psychology at Arizona State University, I am often sent textbooks for evaluation. In my office I have all six of those books, and I looked in the index and glossary of each of them. The term “Social Philosophy” was not mentioned once in any of the texts.

Finally, I did what many people do when they want to know what a certain term means—I looked it up in the dictionary. In the Oxford English Dictionary, SP falls under the entry “Psychology,” and it is described as the study of the interaction between an individual and groups. SP is again listed under the term “Social,” where it is described as “the study of human behaviour as it is affected by social factors.” “Social Philosophy” is not listed in the OED. Dictionary.com lists SP exclusively as a branch of psychology, as does Encarta, American Heritage and Onelook. Social Philosophy is not listed in any of these dictionaries.

And I will leave you with this: I don’t know what the big debate is over Social Philosophy. I’ve never heard of any “methodology wars,” and I do not hold any pro-america bias (I go to plenty of social psychology conferences, and there are scores of international scholars there who all seem to be doing the same types of things that I do). I respectfully disagree that the SPhil section adds anything to this article, or puts anything into context, but I do understand the mindset of those working on this article. I just feel like I’m missing something, and that frustrates me. I am mere months away from a Ph.D. in social psychology. I attend conferences with thousands of other social psychologists from around the world. I listen to their talks, read their research, chat with them, and we all seem to be on the same page. I’m sorry that I’m so stubborn about this, but (to throw in some persuasion tactics) 2500 Social Psychologists can’t be wrong. Nick 03:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you can mostly chock that all up to specialization, for the most part. For example, in a search using SAGE publications full-text engine, there are 74 mentions of "structure-agency" or "structure/agency": it is a more sociologically popular term, but (I hope) not to be maligned for that reason. "Social philosophy" is a rare term, to which I indulged a bit of lexical freedom, because it seems more appropriate than other candidate terms; but in my core text, only terms like "philosophy" or "philosophy of science" are used.

Anyway, my source text for social philosophy was a small-time text, but a scholarly one: Cote and Levine. I cannot rebut claims of popularity, and am embaressed to say I may only appeal to reasoning. I ask you to examine the ideas mentioned in that section. If, after genuinely reading and attempting to understand what you have read, you still find the material less than essential, that would be an argument for its removal.

I've completed all the edits you requested, including the removal of all small-time theories. They have been transferred to Wikibooks, a link to which has been placed in the Further Reading section here. The size of the article should now be well within limits. Lucidish 03:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Another search on Sage Full-Text Collection (in the Psychology field) yields 1407 general results for "(philosophy or ontology or epistemology) and (social psychology)", with 950 peer-Reviewed Journals and 39 conferences. It goes back to 1970. The social Sciences Citation index, by contrast, goes back to only 1981, and yielded something in the area of 60 results for the same search: the discrepancy forces one to give pause.

I will now examine philosophy of social science books to see if the methodology wars and structure-agency debate are addressed.

Admittedly, the social philosophy section now actually takes up a significant proportion of the article, since the bulk of the article has been transferred. Still, in the meanwhile, short of convincing argument, I'll make sure that the section on philosophy is preserved. -- Lucidish

Some Suggestions

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)

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)

History

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)

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)

Further Suggestions

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)

Social theories

I don't see why the social theories section is divided into such tiny subsections, like attribution theory, evolutionary theory, etc. Lucidish 01:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, the list of important terms and concepts is growing to the extent where it rivals what was already written and removed to Wikibooks; indeed, much of it is simply the same material as what was there before. Sam Spade, could you please engage in discussion with the other parties here to straighten out what exactly is appropriate for the article? Lucidish 20:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

From the looks of this talk page I havn't the time ;) The template said you needed expert input, and I therefore began repairing the article while preparing for my exams. Social psychology is a broad subject, and what I found was mainly some sort of redundant debate about psychology vrs. sociology. If information was removed to wiki-books, I suspect I might like to review the history and have a look at whats missing. As per my additions, your very welcome to them, and my suggestion on what is appropriate for the article is a slash and burn rewrite of the first third (the intro and the following several sections). Sam Spade 22:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to recap, other members had expressed the desire to keep such sections short and sweet, with emphasis upon only the major theories. That seems more prudent, since, as you say, the discipline is large, and so will create a large amount of material -- too much for a single article, in all likelihood.

I'm concerned at your slash-and-burn approach, because some of your edits are redundant, i.e., are already explained in more appropriate sections of the article. Lucidish 22:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

On Internal Validity & Causality

Firstly, the conrol of extraneous variables is only one component determining internal validity. Systematic manipulation of independent variables is the other. And the authors of your textbook reference (michener et al) work mainly with mathematical models and correlational research and do relatively little experimental work. The Smith & Mackie citation is the most qualified of the THREE citations. One of Smith's areas is research methodology and he published one of key articles defining Research Design in In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology (pp. 17-39). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. If anyone is qualified to describe the nature of Internal Validity it's Eliot Smith.

As for causality, your metaphysical notion of it's there/it's not there fails to capture the meaning of internal validity. Internal validity is not a hit/miss interpretation of causality. It's on a continuum, experiments just happen to be high in internal validity because they make active attempts to control for extraneous variables and systematically manipulate independent variables. Of course, as good skeptics, all social scientists can never be absolutely certain that a causal relationship exists between two variables, but we have a higher degree of confidence if experimental controls were rigorous.

However, experimental research differs significantly from correlational research, because the very nature of correlational research is that it simply measures naturally occurring variables, and that is antithetical to the experimental approach.

The Michener quote, I should say, is in the context of an explanation of the "experimental" approach, which already presupposes manipulation of independent variables and the observation of dependent ones. So: yes.

As to what Michener and his friends enjoy researching, I do not much care. The fact is that their textbook includes a certain definition, and either your proposed formulations fit it, or they do not. I think they do; in which case, you're arguing about nothing. But perhaps I'm wrong; show me how, and I'll repent.

I'm not sure I've communicated my point effectively. I'll try again. I agree that these things may be gauged on a spectrum. My claim doesn't imply otherwise. What I claimed, rather, was that your formulations rely upon causality as a criterion (Brehm, Kassin, & Fein; Smith and Mackie); and pointed out that there is little meaningful scientific difference between that claim, and the claim about correlations; since all causal relations are discovered by means of observing correlations. In effect, I am showing how your worry amounts to almost no critical difference whatsoever.

I might add that it has the added burden of appealing to a metaphysical notion (causality), as opposed to a more scientific notion (correlation). But in the end, I don't care. I just want to show you how what you're saying is, in observational terms, the same as what Michener etc said. Lucidish 22:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing your quote was NOT the formal definition that Michener provided for internal validity if you're merely pulling out one statement they made in a list of statements regarding internal validity. I'll look into the textbook when I get a chance to see what their definition was for myself. In addition, that one statement does not equate with the degree of confidence a researcher has in the causal relationship between IVs & DVs. That's merely one of the two criteria that researchers use to assess internal validity. Using a mysterious hedge like "observational terms" to equate the two is a non sequitir.

As research methodologies, there is a major disctinction between experimental research and correlational research. Perhaps if you spent more time learning social science rather than philosophy, the finer distintions of empirical research would be more salient to you.

Btw, causality in the operational terms I defined it above IS scientific. Perhaps if you took a course in philosophy of science and read some Hempel you'd have a better understanding of the difference between the type of causality that Hume critiqued and the operational procedures that scientists use to assess their degree of confidence in causality. Seems like you're equating internal validity with causality and not with the degree of confidence one has in whether they are observing a causal relationship which is dependent on particular procedures. I suspect this is because you're using an antiquated philosophical perspective as your lens.

By all means look at the text if you have any doubts. It was a direct quote. Page 28 of the fifth edition, second row, right at the top.

It is not a non-sequitur to point out that causes are merely inferred, while correlations are perceived, and hence that the former are less scientific than the latter. Actually, that's one of epistemology's main interests. Of direct interest to this article.

Not sure what's "mysterious" about the phrase "observational terms". Just means "what you really see and perceive". IE: you don't observe causes, while you do perceive correlations (roughly).

I'll gladly learn whatever you like. Those particular (misleading) phrases -- correlational and experimental research -- are not in the Michener text, at least not in the senses you attribute to them. But if they are conventionally used elsewhere, then that's grand. I'm just saying that your conception of some critical difference between a causal explanation of IV and a correlational one is, for the purposes of scientific analysis, superficial -- since we're only confident about a cause by a) observing a correlation, and b) controlling for possible confounding correlates.

"Btw, causality in the operational terms I defined it above IS scientific." Confused. You didn't define cause, you defined IV in terms of degree of justified belief in cause. If this is to be a redefinition of "cause", then it's just idiosyncratic redefinition of words. But I'm not sure that's really what you intend.

Again: causes are postulated, inferred, not observed. Hence less scientific. That figuring out causes is the underlying goal of much of scientific research, there is no doubt; but the observation of correlations between phenomena is actually, operationally, what you're doing. Any mention of "causes" is scientifically superfluous.

Now I'm sure these days most would be more sympathetic to the argument that causality has to play some role in scientific explanation. (Others, like Karl Pearson, wouldn't.) That doesn't change the fact, though, that it is a wheel that does no work when you get down to actual observations. Hence: no critical difference. Lucidish 18:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you couldn't be any more clueless on how science works, especially in the social sciences, psychology in particular. Do you really think what we're doing is some kind of inductive baconian empiricism? Of course we don't merely observe what we see and report it in some laundry-list fashion. Science is not reliant on just meandering around looking for data. Theory is also important and practically every concept in psychology is given an operational definition tailored to the specific study in question. So, using theoretically-informed procedures for making inferences is every bit just as scientific as the baconian science you 'imagine' science to be, even more so. Karl Pearson never developed experimental statistical procedures in psychology and his notions of what statistics could do/could not do are outdated and were superceded by Fisher, so citing him as a source on what statistics or science should be like is meaningless. The limitations of one man's imagination holds no bearing on what statisticians and social scientists are doing today.

Remember, the key phrase I used "as research methodology" that you are still arguing about causality vs. correlation from your rather limited quasi-humean frame either means you don't read very well or are just stubborn. Let me explain it to you better. Experimental research has 2 main criteria that must be met for it to be considered an experiment. 1. Independent variables must be systematically manipulated. 2. Extraneous variables must be controlled to the same degree across conditions. I'll add also that the change in the dependent variable is measured as a function of the independent variable. In correlational research, variables are merely measured in a naturalistic setting and the strength and direction of their association is measured. This is why in experimental research, Fisher's and student's t-tests are used more often, and Pearson's r is used more often in correlational research. One set of tests if focused more on the differences between groups; the other on the relationship between variables. It's quite simple to understand. The frame from which you are approaching these terms really has no place on a discussion on the differences between research methodologies.

Your first paragraph appears to be searching around for my point and failing at every turn. The second paragraph agrees with my comments, and says nothing at all about the issue of the role of causality. I've never said anything Baconian, or even really anything that radical.

I would repeat myself, except it's obvious that you aren't actually in this conversation because you care to understand what I'm saying. In any case, my reasons have been presented; I will edit the article accordingly. Maybe tomorrow you can read those points again and gain more than you've gained today. Lucidish 22:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

What is clear is that you don't understand what I've been saying this entire time. You are approaching the nature of internal validity in an odd manner because you have a limited understanding of philosophy of science and are attempting to grasp it using what little information you've apparently covered in your 'undergraduate' education. If you agreed with the second paragraph on research methodogologies, why even bring up worthless points about an antiquated and completely unrelated view of causality vs. correlation? Verbal masturbation perhaps?

Point and purposes may be found above. It is fairly clear, not complicated. Lucidish 02:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop. In the social and behavioral sciences, internal validity has to do with causality. See the book by Shadish, Cook & Campbell: Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Also see the book Causality by Judea Pearl. This is not an article about the philosophical aspects of causality. We needed a short definition of internal validity, and even that may be unnecessary to a Social Psychology article. -Nick 03:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Had you read, you would see that causal knowledge as a goal is not eliminated in the edit. The route by which confidence in causes is arrived at is what's been explicated. Please read before responding.

To say that internal validity is not required in an article on SP is quite irregular; what textbook eliminates material on research method from its pages? None (I hope, for science's sake).

The sole argument you make here that I am sympathetic to is the notion of being economical with space. However, the edit does not take up much space, so it isn't actionable. Lucidish 17:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not Wikibooks. This is an encyclopedia article, not a textbook. Internal validity is worth a mention, a week of debate over it is not necessary. Please get your facts straight: studies can demonstrate "clear correlations between variables" and still not possess internal validity. If I conduct a study testing the hypothesis that increased ice cream sales are causing an increase in child drownings, I would likely find a clear correlation between the the two variables (ice cream sales and drownings). However, this study does NOT possess internal validity, as there are confounds present (temperature/time of year). In order to demonstrate a causal relationship there are three necessary components: unambiguous temporal precedence, covariation and nonspuriousness (J.S. Mill). A good experiment demonstrates that all three of these exist, and therefore demonstrates a causal link between variables. The extent to which it does this is the extent to which it possesses internal validity. In other words, your definition is misleading, as demonstrating a "clear correlation" is not sufficient to provide internal validity--it neglects the other components of causality (and among researchers, the most critical component of internal validity is nonspuriousness--it is easy to find correlations, it is hard to find unconfounded ones). I have cited two graduate level texts above that support my argument. Look: I teach university courses in Social Psychology, Statistics, Research Methodology and Advanced Research Methodology, and taken many many graduate courses in those same areas. I can find no evidence to support your definition, and I am reverting your edits. -Nick 18:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

First I would like to say that I respect your authority on these matters. I hope that a respectful disagreement is possible, and that cogent reasoning is not abandoned for the sake of rhetorical expediency except as a last resort.

Second: surely you must realize that none of your arguments are actually saying anything against the text I wrote in the article. Your conclusion, like that of Anon's, has focused upon glimpses of my underlying philosophy of science, which happens to be irrelevant to the text which is supposed to be under dispute. Also, and again, the text is minor, so your "Wikipedia not wikibooks" slogan is ill-used. (You might, incidentally, think of having a word with Sam Spade, if length of article is something that seriously worries you.)

Anyway. What's your source on the Millian inductive method? From my texts (Copi and Cohen, "Introduction to Logic"), Mill had five (well, really four) criteria for the proper evaluation of causal relevance in "A System of Logic". All of them reduce to different kinds of work with correlations:

1. The method of agreement. If two or more circumstances have only one thing in common, then that is more likely to be the cause (or effect) of the given phenomenon. IE: there is a high correlation between X and y, and there are no other highly persistent correlations between X and something else
2. The method of difference. "If an instance in which the phenomenon under investigation occurs and an instance in which it does not occur, have every circumstance in common save one, that one ocurring only in the former [and not the latter], the circumstance in which alone the two instances differ, is the effect, or the cause, or an indispensable part of the cause, of the phenomenon." IE: there is a high correlation between A, B, C, D and w, x, y, z; and there is a high correlation between B, C, D and x, y, z; :. A is causally relevant to w
3. The joint method of agreement and difference. (The above two combined)
4. The method of residues. "Subduct from any phenomenon such part as is known by previous inductions to be the effect of certain antecedents, and the residue of the phenomenon is the effect of the remaining antecedents." IE: A, B, C are correlated with x, y, z; B is known to be caused by y, and C is known to be caused by z; :. A is the cause of x
5. The method of concomitant variation. "Whatever phenomenon varies in any manner whenever another phenomenon varies in some particular manner is either a cause or an effect of that phenomenon or is connected with it through some fact of causation." IE: A, B, C are correlated with x, y, z; an increase in phenomenon A is correlated with an increase in x; therefore A is causally relevant to x

Temporal sequence is a staple in the analysis of causes, and also ultimately a matter of correlations. "Non-spuriousness" is the only thing I would require more information on to judge. Lucidish 21:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

My source is as mentioned above: Shadish, Cook & Campbell (2001). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. If I was in my office right now, I would leave you the page number as well. It is the latest edition of the most frequently used graduate-level text on research methodology in the social and behavioral sciences. Now I am not an expert on Mill's writings, but I have seen the three-criterion rule of causality attributed to Mill in many, many places. Regardless, you did not address my key point: a study can demonstrate a clear correlation but have no internal validity (see my above example). That is in direct conflict with your definition of internal validity. You imply that demonstrating a clear correlation between variables is sufficient for internal validity to be present, and that is simply not the case. I will not revert because of the 3RR, but, for the record, I am 100% positive that your definition is inaccurate. -Nick 01:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The child drowning/iced cream example does, indeed, demonstrate an instance of the common maxim, that "not every correlation represents causation". But if you think that has been my point, then you'd be mistaken (and I'd be very confused as to how one could interpret me that way, since I'd very explicitly said that that was the very opposite of my intent). My point is that every cause which is inferred, is inferred on the basis of a complex series of correlations. That tells us jack-squat about the inverse.

Now, by all means, comment upon the material that has been presented above. That is the point, the question at hand. Point to the place in any of those inductive steps -- or, for that matter, in your tripartite formulation -- that is not made up of analysis of correlations, and you will have won the day. Lucidish 20:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Nick is right, correlational research has NO internal validity, so referring to internal validity as correlational is just well, stupid. That someone with absolutely no qualifications and little course work in social psychology and the social sciences would continue to present an inaccurate point for this many posts is absurd. Four sources have been presented that show internal validity concerns causation and describes experiments (NOT correlational research). I have yet to see Lucidsih present any sources to support his definition of internal validity. The michener text doesn't use his particular definition. It's pretty easy to see who's right in this situation and it isn't Lucidish.

Thank you. -Nick 05:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You have failed to understand the point, once again; probably in some part due to a narrow idea of the notion of "correlation", associated with your use of the phrase "correlational research". Has been explained in greater detail with the above post. Lucidish 19:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, regarding the Michener text, the quote under investigation is: ""We say that the findings of a study have internal validity if they are free from contamination by extraneous variables."" If you could not find it, it is for lack of trying. I can post a photograph of the section, if you like, but that would be going far beyond the call of duty. Lucidish

I did find the quote from the Michener text that you placed in the 'discussion page'. But, that's not the definition you were using in the Article buddy ;) Thanks for changing the definiton btw. It's a wonderful and unexpected show of intelligence and prudence on your part.

That was, and always has been, the "Michener quote". Review the talk page, and you'll note it.

The article's edit was controversial, but, as I've shown, justified. Insofar as you actually do have a disagreement with my point, you and Nick are defending absurdity -- namely, the postulation of causes from out of nowhere; since (as I've shown) Mill's inductive methods, just to use one example, are based firmly upon an understanding of correlations.

However, it's not at all clear that either of you have, from the beginning, even tried to read what I've been writing here. Even when plain numbers were placed in bold, you have interpreted the opposite of what they meant. Lucidish 23:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

sorry, but when it comes to research methodology, what Nick and I are saying is correct. IF you want to debate the metaphysical notion of causality so badly, then you should really take those debates to a philosophy page. The defintion you were attempting to place into the encyclopedia article was not the Michener quote you dropped in the discussion forum. Pretty bad form resorting to lies now just to save face. The continuous attempts to save a position you already capitulated on says wonders about your insecurity.

1. I never claimed that the Michener quote was identical to the claim in the article. I did, however, seek to point out that there had been no confusion over what exactly the Michener quote was until your latest posts.

2. What you are saying constitutes a POV bias in the philosophy of science, with the added sin that it shows a lack of understanding of both my points and of your own material. The fact that you haven't even tried to rebut the comments on Mill -- after he was brought up by Nick, not me -- is telling. In any case, were this an article about philosophy of science in particular, or epistemology, I would continue this line. But I'm getting a bit sick of being the philosophical whack-a-mole for such a relatively banal point. The original force of the argument was that IV can be defined operationally without reference to causes (except, maybe, as a goal). The Michener quote satisfies this. Thank you for coming to this agreement. Lucidish 18:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The only bias around here is coming from the person trying to push is own idiosyncratic philosophical ideas about causality into an article on social psychology. The discussion on Mill was between you and Nick. Besides, it has no bearing on the notion of experimental vs. correlational research in the "social sciences". Mill is just used as one of many guides for Cook & Campbell to explain experimentation. You're not discussing correlation in the manner that is should be discussed in the context of an empirical discipline and social psychology is an empirical discipline, despite your efforts to present it as something else. I doubt someone with real ability in philosophy would even bother coming over to other sciences trying impress his idiosyncratic notions on others. Any criticisms you have of social scientific notions or science in general should be discussed in philosophy of science. This is a page on the practice of social psychology, and that includes common disciplinary assumptions, theories, and research. This is NOT a soapbox where you can discuss philosophical debates that are irrevelant to this generic encyclopedia article. Take a class and write a paper, publish in a journal maybe. Do something more productive with your ideas other than meander around an encyclopedia article on social psychology.

If this is original research, my sincerest apologies; I had mistaken these points regarding the nature of inductive causal inference to be obvious and true. In fact, I still suspect that the arguments made here are both; but that present conceits and trends lull both of you away from acknowledging the argument, and in your case, to fail to draft any serious consideration toward the issue at all. Nick, at least, tried to engage the question. I applaud him for it. You haven't. It would be rude of me to speculate why.

And, again, the use of the idiomatic term "correlational research" -- implying that actual examination of correlations is somehow opposed to experimental research -- is misleading, as a consequence of the argument here. Just about all research with any validity hinges upon an understanding of correlations. Anyway, what is the manner in which correlations "should" be discussed? The idiomatic way that you endorse? It's bound to confuse readers with even a hint of a background in the social sciences, or indeed anyone who knows the meaning of "correlation".

Idiosyncratic? Not quite. I already mentioned Pearson. You also attributed to me the views of Bacon, Hume; I don't exactly favor either, but to the extent that you can claim that you understand what's been argued here, the fact that you can find something recognizable in all this is incompatible with any claim about "idiosyncracy".

You're right on one thing: a better philosopher -- or scientist -- than I am would have had the wisdom to ignore you right when you began with ad hominems. Lucidish 22:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

sigh...there you go again with your humean presumptions. Unless, we're talking about the type of baconian empiricism practiced by grounded theorists or some phenomenologists, the discussion of causality does NOT fall on inductive lines. Most research in Social Psychology is conducted on Nomological-Deductive lines. It's idiosyncratic to the degree that you think it's relevant to this article. No one else today is using this antiquated perspective to argue causality in the social sciences or natural sciences in general. The nature of the debate has changed since Hume. It's not quite as simplistic as you're concieving it to be. And of course you can't ignore the commentary on the page...apparently, it's all you got going on ;)

When it comes to research methodologies, correlational research is opposed to experimental research bud. Try picking up some social scientific journals to find out how. You'll find some studies utilize lab (sometimes field) based experimental procedures where they manipulate several factors, control of variables ect. Correlational research usually utilizes survey methods where they measure naturally occurring variables (without systematically manipulating them). The statistical procedures for handing either also differ. Anovas are used for experiments, pearson's r and regressions for correlational research (Anovas too depending on whether your IVs are categorical). And no this isn't result of some fashion or trend, it's a real difference regardless of whether you acknowledge it or not.

And of course reciting an antiquated position isn't original. I was being facetious. I know you like to verbally masturbate, I was just providing you with some suggestions where it would be more appropriate to do so.

I take these issues seriously. If you do not, perhaps you should find another field to work in, because they are critical.

By all means, show by use of argument -- not vague analogy or characterization -- how my purely descriptive account is in conflict with explanatory accounts like DN. Then, and only then, will you have shown that you both understood and substantively disagreed with my point. Lucidish 23:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Since When does an SEM produce data?

Well, it appears that the ill-qualified and ill-informed author of this page is once again defacing the discipline of social psychology. Apparently, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is now a technique for collecting data. Let's get this straight, an SEM is a STATISTICAL PROCEDURE performed on correlational data that can test the direction of a relationship between two correlated variables to determine which direction bests fits the data. This is where the causal inference is implied. SEM does NOT collect or produce data though.

SEM, I gather, generates a set of hypothetical data, which is then compared with the actual data collected. Lucidish 22:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

In SEM, a correlation matrix is created that specifies the relations between a set of varaiables based on theory and hypothesis. It then compares the actual observed correlation matrix with the specified one and generates various fit indicies. If the two matricies do not significantly differ, then it is said that the model "fits" the data. Causal inferences are made based on a combination of the theory and the fit indicies. -Nick 22:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

A semantic difference. Word it as you see fit. Lucidish 23:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No not really, data is never hypothetical.

Nope. When I type 2+2 in my calculator, and ask for the solution, it is a hypothetical exercize (in the sense that the "twos" in question don't correspond to any particular set of two things in the world), yet surely I am still dealing in data. Lucidish 18:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

ROFLMAO...Merriam-Webster's defines data as: factual information (as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation.

One sense among others. This is the nature of semantic arguments. OED: "1. a. A thing given or granted; something known or assumed as fact, and made the basis of reasoning or calculation; an assumption or premiss from which inferences are drawn.

d. pl. The quantities, characters, or symbols on which operations are performed by computers and other automatic equipment, and which may be stored or transmitted in the form of electrical signals, records on magnetic tape or punched cards, etc.Lucidish 22:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

that definition doesn't in any way imply that data is hypothetical or deduced from a set of premises. If anything data are the foundational points from which other inferences are drawn (according to your definition) not the other way around. Also, in an exclusively scientific context, the #2 definition from OED is more appropriate, 2. pl. Facts, esp. numerical facts, collected together for reference or information.

What the definition implies or necessitates isn't the same as what it allows, and both are relevant to any lexical scrutineer, not just the former. Appropriateness, I don't argue; you have the freedom to choose whatever words you think are clearest. Lucidish 22:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

way too ELM heavy

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)

US & European Social Psychology

I removed the reference to Psychological Social Psychology being more popular in the US and Sociological SP being more popular in Europe. Those claims were false. The majority of research in both types of SP is performed predominantly in the US. Also, the majority of social psychologists in Europe work from an experimental perspective, whether it's a social identity or social cognition perspective more specifically. Also, the few discourse analysts working mainly out of England would self-identity as psychologists. I'm not exactly sure where that impression that emanates from. Names like Meiser, Fiedler, Sassenberg, Klauer, Ver Planken, Bohner, Croizet, Doosje, van Knippenberg Wigboldus should be familiar to anyone with the least bit of knowledge about European Social Psychology and they all operate from 2 psychological perspectives: social cognition or social identity. In fact, Tajfel is considered by many to be the father of European Social Psychology and he was a psychologically-oriented SP who was immensely influential on both social cognition and social identity theory. The same can also be said of Australian social psychology. It is predominantly psychological and operates from either of the two perspectives.

Bloated article?

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)

Attempt to de-bloat

I just came across this bloated page and found that, it seems that said bloat has not gone unnoticed. My the first step was to kill the tangentially-relevant-at-best philosophy stuff. So here's a first move to de-bloat. My recommendation would be next to split the article into two separate articles, one from the psych side and one from the soc side. (Perhaps "Social Psychology (Socological)" and "Social Psychology (Psychological)" might be two good headings?) "Social Psychology" could then lead to a disambiguation page that would present the differences between the two subfields. Resarchers in the two different areas in the same university typically have little contact, so it makes sense to split things up. Albanynewyorker 16 May 2006

No, that's not tangentially related any more than Research Methods in your average textbook is. I'm reverting for that reason.

Also, no, to create that divide would be arbitrary. You may see the above discussion on the various issues involved, if you like. If you want, you can put up a "split" tag to attract attention. However, it seems to me that a split in subject matter on the basis of who wants to talk to who is laughably sophomoric. Perhaps a genuine dispute over fundamental assumptions and research methods might prompt such a division (ala that between sociology and economics), but not here. Lucidish 19:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, Lucidish, aren't you the one who suggested splitting the article? On what basis do you suggest splitting? -Nick^talk 19:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But my thoughts pertained to the "important terms and concepts" section. While it's certainly a good idea to have some section like that, it's perhaps too large. Much of the content might be slimmed down or transferred to more specialized wikis. (Though I agree that other sections, like the theoretical section, might also need slimming.) Lucidish 21:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the time or desire to get in a wikipedia-war, but I'll lay out my full argument here: Reasons why the page should be split: 1. Take a look at the authors' lists in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (psych's social psy) and the Journal of Social Psychology (soc's social psy). You will notice that practically no authors come from the "opposite" department -- that is, people from psy departments publish in JPSP, while people from soc departments publish in JSP. Very few exceptions. The fact that we even HAVE different journals should say something. 2. If you ask faculty in various departments, you'll learn that there is practically no collaboration whatsoever between areas. 3. There's a fundamental difference in questions that we ask -- ask what intererests a soc person and what interests a psy person: You'll notice that our differences go far beyond "assumptions" and "research methods". 4. Did someone mention bloat? Reasons why the philosophy stuff doesn't belong here: 1. Pick up any text in social psych (at least the psych side) and you'll see no reference whatsoever to this philosophy stuff. 2. Did someone say bloat? Reasons why I'm bothered by the fact that the page, as it is now, is crummy: 1. This is my area. I've got a PhD and have published in social psych's major journals. To see my field represnted so awkwardly in Wikipedia is bothersome. 2. Students read Wikipedia, and as is, I don't think that social psychology (at least my side, the psych side) is properly represented. They'll be confused as to what social psych is all about 3. Looking over the edits, it seems that Lucidish, who doesn't have the credentials to speak on social psychology's behalf (at least based upon the credentials stated in his bio page), has "taken control" over this page. In closing, I have neither the time nor patience to get in a heated argument or to make changes that will be reverted. I've got more important things to do. I've laid out my arguments, and if Lucidish feels that they're not compelling enough to him, then I'm done. I assume that Lucidish is doing what he feels is best for the page. But he should step back, realize that he is not an expert in the field, and defer to people who are. Respectfully, Albanynewyorker 17 May 2006

"Pick up any text in social psych (at least the psych side)". This is precisely your problem: approaching only from the PSP side.

I think these moves you are suggesting are totally wrongheaded. I have provided citations and reasons for every single one of the measures that I've taken here: they arise out of hours of labor studying and transcribing the Michener / Cote-Levine texts, as well as my experience in sociology and SSP under Cote and Levine (most of which were ignored or misunderstood here by hotheads with a grudge). Perhaps not "credentials" -- but yes, I do have knowledge in this area, enough to know that you are making a grave error from one side of the divide (SSP), and which would be POV if it weren't based on adademic consensus.

Nevertheless, if this has consensus status in at least one field, then I have no choice but to step back and let you perform a split on the basis of PSP and SSP.

Again, I can't emphasize enough that this is a poor thing to do. As others have suggested here, it may even be biased towards American standards. But I won't interfere, because I just want what's best. I'll let more vetted figures hash out the obvious to you people. Lucidish 17:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding a split tag, just out of procedure. If anyone else wants to weigh in on the matter, they'll have a goodly amount of time to do so. Lucidish 19:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Lucidish. Keep in mind that the SSP folks have one flagship journal, while the PSP folks have another. Little if any crossover collaboration between the two. The SSP folks have a conference, while the PSP folks have another (actually, two). Little if any crossover between the two. I'm not advocating a split between the fields. The fields have been split for a long as I've been around; my argument is simply the fact that the Wikipedia page should reflect that. Respectfully, Albanynewyorker 17 May 2006

Hey, Albany. I understand. My frustration, at least on this issue, may have been poorly directed. It should be at the academy and the present consensus and the lack of dialogue, not at you or Nick. I'm sorry for the brash way that I've phrased things.

Perhaps I should make clear my motives. Both Jim Cote and Chuck Levine are SSP-oriented, but they have made an honest effort to do interdisciplinary work, extending an olive branch to both social philosophers and PSP researchers. I am greatly impressed by their project and their aims. Moreover, the areas of overlap are so significant between these fields that it's shocking to hear that the disciplines have been compartmentalized to the point of no return.

Perhaps my views are too optimistic. I look forward to a change in things in the future, but understand that this isn't the venue for it. Lucidish 21:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, again, Lucidish. This is what happens in the sciences as a body of knowledge expands. For example, pre-1960, the premier journal in PSP was the "Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology"... the same journal was the primary outlet for both the fields of abnormal and social psychology. But as time went on, and science accelerated, there was too much knowledge to cram under one roof. Under the "publish-or-perish" rule of academia, rewards typically come from being a well-known expert in one particular field rather than being a generalist. This serves as a disincentive to be well-versed in areas outside of your partiular research area -- even within PSP, much less SSP. Ask a social-cognitive researcher how much she knows about interpersonal relationships. Or a discrimination researcher how much she knows about decisionmaking. Enough to chat at a conference and understand presentations and manuscripts, but enough to do actual collabrative research? Not so much. Thus, there's no animosity between areas, just ignorance (and a lack of interest) because we're too busy frantically trying to keep up on the research in our own particular area. Regardless of whether it's right or wrong, good or bad, this really is the way things are. The page should reflect that. Respectfully, Albanynewyorker 17 May 2006

Hey A.N.Y. I won't block your efforts, though I hope we can comprimise. At least one of my goals has been to explain the relationship between SSP and PSP, be it a focus on their similarities or differences. We could create new pages for SSP and PSP, but refrain from making this page a disambig page by keeping the intro material, which explains in some detail what the difference is (which a naive user requires in order to understand why there's a division).

Regarding your more general remarks on the consensus: as you can probably tell, I think the division of labor is dysfunctional. Specialization will never go away (it gets too much done), and is obviously a vast improvement over the tinkering of dilettentes. However, overspecialization limits both opportunities for greater understanding of the relevant theoretical applications of certain research (thus, one may infer, increasing chances of funding), and limits opportunities for greater insight and understanding of the material itself by putting it in context. Moreover, the specialization trend, which has been steady of the past 200 years, has recently been challenged by the rise in popularity of interdisciplinary studies. So that's the social trend.

But there are also fairly obvious theoretical boons. Give me, for example, any bit of PSP, and I may show you an interdisciplinary application. To name some in philosophy: certain research in cognitive science (such as the work of Benjamin Libet) sheds light on issues of a compatibilistic free will (as well as raising a number of other issues); studies of both attribution and attitudes impact philosophical studies of value and valuation (as I have expressed recently at an online philosophy conference); studies in attribution are indispensible in practical considerations of ethical accountability. Cognitive science is heavily rooted in philosophy of mind, to the point where some might claim they're indistinguishable: I just took a class on autism, where we studied the leading psychologists in the field. This holds analogously for Pragmatics and Semantics and philosophy of language. On the side of SSP and sociology, the so-called methodological individualists in SSP may hold that sociological research is reducible to the concepts and work in PSP. How else, for instance, can I explain the "deviance amplifying process", than by reactance? Etc. Lucidish 01:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Article split

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. -Nick^talk 19:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• And I'll begin. I think this article should be split. There are differences here that are simply not going to be resolved. These differences stem from a great disparity in the perspectives of the editors from this page. In addition to discipline-specific perspectives, there are quite obviously cultural/international differences coming into play. Please do not confuse internatioanal biases with discipline-specific perspectives. Psychological Social Psychology journals are filled with research from all over the globe, and those researchers share common perspectives as to what Social Psychology is. -Nick^talk 19:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• As per my comments above, I also support a split. Albanynewyorker 17 May 2006
• Retain, but overhaul; create specialized PSP and SSP pages. A disambiguation page would be overstating the case for a divide between the fields. However, the creation of separate pages will allow the interested parties from each side to create more specialized exposition. The current page could be reduced substantially so that it only covered topic areas, and discussed the nature of the PSP-SSP division. Lucidish 21:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Retain, but overhaul; create specialized PSP and SSP pages. I agree with Lucidish. Although I'm a Ph.D. in PSP and know next to nothing about SSP, I think that the moderate approach of creating two subpages and having one page to explore the divide and overlaping interests of the two SPs would be best. user:ur_land

• Split. As a PSP student, this page seems to have fundamental problems that would be best resolved by splitting the two. Social cognition listed as an "other theory"? One entire section of JPSP is entitled "Attitudes and Social Cognition" - pretty prominent for an "other theory". No mention of the IAT? No matter what your opinion of it may be, I would wager that the IAT is one of the more popular in-class demos in a social psych class. Positive Psychology? Social psychologists (Diener, Seligman, etc.) were prominently featured in a Time magazine cover story about the topic. These are three examples off the top of my head - I'm sure there are more. For these to not be mentioned in a Social Psychology entry is a disservice to the topic. Given that these are clearly PSP issues, it seems to make sense to split PSP and SSP.Solitary refinement 17:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Split. I suggest we split the page, but instead of creating a disambiguation page at "Social psychology" I would suggest a disambiguation link at the top of the page forwarding to "Social psychology (sociological)" or something of that sort. The psychological end of social psychology is far more noteworthy. Many more graduate programs, more research, more journals, etc. Irongargoyle 13:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Retain but overhaul. I would keep this page to present a more general picture. We could develop specialized PSP SSP pages (with main article references on this page) listing specific researchers and detailed account of methods (e.g. IAT); also emotions, habit and trust and their determints are becoming bigger topics in PSP; while I imagine they may not be in PSP; so these could go to the subpage Arnoutf 18:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Retain but overhaul. Santa Sangre 22:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

any reason? -Nick^talk 23:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Wikipedian with a Personal Agenda

I think the main problem with this article is that one of the contributers (Lucidish) has a personal agenda to make this page more interdisciplinary by splicing together aspects of philosophy, sociology, and social psychology. While, there are indeed areas that all of those disciplines study and each would benefit from listening to the findings and perspectives of the others, this particular article is about social psychology, NOT social philosophy. Any philosophical material that relates to topics investigated by social psychologists should be placed in a social philosophy article. I think Lucidish is well intentioned in his attempt to inform people interested in social psychological topics about their philosophical implications and relation to other philosophical topics, but that objective would be better addressed by reaching out to psychologist and sociologists, NOT by trying to domineer the editing on an encyclopedia article. Encyclopedia articles are not here to warp the ideologies and understanding of lay persons. They are merely here to give basic information on a topic. Throwing in social philosophy in the middle of the social psychology article is moving away from that objective. It also confuses people if they choose to dig deeper into social psychology and discover that this article is grossly misrepresentative of what social psychologists actually do. I think it's time for Lucidish to pursue his personal agenda in another forum. Encyclopedia entries are not soapboxes.

As for splitting up the article. I think it's a great idea. I sense a great deal of fear from the "SSP" side of this debate. This confuses me somewhat because SSPs (Peter Burke for example) have always been against uniting the two disciplines. One of his main arguments being that the perspectives that SSPs bring in would be squashed by the much larger and methodologically sophisticated PSP. I agree. Being trained not only as social psychologists, but as sociologists, SSPs have a special insight into social psychological questions that the psychologists lack. The same can be said for PSPs. It's pretty rare to find SSPs interested in neuroscientific or cognitive methods, but it's almost expected that PSPs will use reaction times or neurological measures. Again, it's rare for a PSP to consider social structural variables in their studies, while it's very prevalent among SSPs. I think both approaches should be represented on wikipedia, but it would be much more sensible to give both their own unique voice that's reflective of the supra-disciplines they represent, Sociology and Psychology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.136 (talk • contribs)

The unreasonable consensus

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.

1. 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.
   1. 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.
   2. 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).
2. 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.
   1. 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.
   2. 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.
      1. the deviance amplifying process (SSP) relies upon reactance (PSP).
      2. moral entrepeneurs (Soc.) cannot be explained without studies of persuasion (PSP), perhaps best understood in terms of social impact theory (PSP).
      3. personality theories (PSP) may explain role-based theories, as in the work of McCall/Simmons and Stryker (SSP).
      4. 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)

A simple rebuttal

In practice, Sociological Social Psychology, Psychological Social Psychology and Social Philosophy are distinct fields of study. And of course they overlap in many places, almost every academic discipline shares major theories, philosophies and backgrounds with others (molecular biology and organic chemistry, for example). The key here is that this is an encyclopedia article and specificity and simplicity are important. Why shouldn't there be an article that explains what SSP is, or what PSP is, or what social philosophy is, exclusive of the other?

And, by the way, I could use much of the logic here to suggest that Canada and the United States should be combined into one article. After all, we do share common histories, common ancestry, common ideals. We frequently interact with one another, exchanging individuals, goods and services. We often work toward the same goals. Our students enroll in each other’s universities and our citizens often visit each other’s cities. Many outsiders might even mistake Canadians and Americans for one another. Yet we are distinct. We have differing governing bodies, somewhat different political philosophies, and formal rules as to who is “Canadian” and who is “American.” Canadians and Americans each have their own culture, as do PSPs and SSPs. I think we should recognize that and give each discipline its own page. -Nick^talk 21:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And Nick's simple argument fails to meet his goals -- though it serves amply to show mine.

The philosophy section -- especially in the form of the original article (which, again, was largely based on painstaking and systematic note-taking from the Michener text) -- was tiny in proportion to the rest of the article. It is still right now rather minor, given that it is mixed with respect to relevant methodological and ethical norms which you would find in any article about any discipline.

Now apply this to his analogy and one will find parallel facts about the article about Canada in relation to America. True, Canada does have its own interesting historical and sociological facts which the article ought to emphasize. Yet an article on Canada which failed to mention America - nay, which failed to mention the many, many ways in which Canada is dependent upon America, and even defined by it - would fail to do justice to what Canada is. Take the war of 1812. Take the fact that America is Canada's largest trading partner, and Canadian politics is routinely held hostage to the threat of American sanctions (i.e. wrt marijuana issue). Take Trudeau's "elephant and mouse in bed" metaphor and jokes about inferiority complexes. This is all obvious to anyone who knows anything about Canadian culture. Lucidish 00:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

As you seem to know a lot about philosophy, lucidish, you should know what the straw man fallacy is. Your response makes little sense. You claim that my argument fails to meet my goals (assuming you know what those are). You then talk about how small your philosophy section is, and then critique my analogy about Canada. You have either missed my point entirely, or are skirting the issue by attacking whatever peripheral information you can find in my statement. My argument is that in practice, SSP and PSP are different academic disciplines. They operate independently of one another. My primary analogy was to molecular biology and organic chemistry, two fields that study organic molecular processes but in different contexts. SSP and PSP study simiar processes but in different contexts. The disciplines are split--whether you like it or not--and wikipedia should reflect that. -Nick^talk 01:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've given up the fight for an amalgamated article. That is why the very first words I wrote were:

"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)".

Thus, I was actually being charitable in my interpretation of Nick's remarks by assuming that they were at all relevant -- which is the opposite of engaging in a straw man.

And even still, assuming that I were still advocating that view, while the thrust of the above post would be off base, the argument would remain germane with respect to the philosophy-methodology section. Of course, that would require actual analysis by fair-minded judges to resolve. Lucidish 02:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If Lucidish is stepping aside..why is he still here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.231.191 (talk • contribs)

No doubt many motives seem mysterious to those who fail to listen or read. Lucidish 19:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Discrepancy

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)

Social psychology (psychology) article created

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! -Nick^talk 04:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Those who are interested in helping out, have at it! Anyone? -Nick^talk 23:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Why academics don't respect Wikipedia

"If anyone wonders why academics have little respect for Wikipedia, they need look no further than this page." This is what I've been thinking to write here for some time, to begin a critique of the way this page has developed. But now I'm not sure I want to make such a strong statement, as I have some hope that the page will be fixed. It seems that underlying reality out there in the world may win out.

But the fact remains that this page has had a serious problem. A zealous guardian of his own POV who doesn't even seem to realize he has an agenda - and clearly has problems cooperating with others - has managed to turn away contributions that might have been made from highly knowledgeable people with Ph.D.s in this field. I raised the issue that people have been discussing here - at some length 3 times (Nov-Dec) - about the fundamental split between psychologists and sociologists who use the same name for two different fields, and was the one who proposed the names Social psychology (sociology) and Social psychology (psychology) (redlinked until recently). But I was not the first to raise this issue; the talk page that was prematurely archived (before this issue was resolved) begins with a parade of objections to what seemed to psychologists as an article about Social psychology (sociology) (and social philosophy?) masqerading as Social psychology. Most of the references in the article that would be familiar to psychologists (and not out of place in "Social psychology") were ones I put there. I was attempting to come to some agreement through discussion; after spending quite a bit of time (that might have otherwise been used for editing) considerately making the case corresponding to reality, Luccidish's response was immediately to create a beautiful diagram that was fundamentally misleading and headed in the opposite direction from what the psychologists were trying to point out (for example, "Sociological social psychology" contained entirely within psychology?), and to create a long list entitled "Next on the docket" as though he were the manager of the page and those of us with Ph.D.s in psychology could be ignored if we didn't fit his vision of a utopian, unified Social psychology. One of these Ph.D.s recently expressed that he had no desire to contribute to this page and have his edits reverted. I had a similar feeling, and I have to admit that I was greatly discouraged by Luccidish's behavior, and my contributions to Wikipedia dropped by 90% as a result.

I see that recently when Luccidish counted "votes" (even though that's not what they're supposed to be), he forgot about the views I had expressed strongly and at length, and didn't include my perspective in his tally.

I am going to be bolder in editing, but someone is going to have to help clean up the mess. -DoctorW 05:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sadly I agree with you, that this page in is a sorry state, and that no serious effort to clear up controversies has been undertaken. Although I like to have a good page here (having a PhD in applied psychology and doing research in applied social psychology) I do not have the time and stamina to improve this page, and I have to admit I have more or less given up on it. Arnoutf 17:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Both these users should rest easy. I have long abandoned this page and any serious efforts at conciliation. I respect the consensus, whatever it may be, and no matter how wrongheaded I think (and have shown) that it is.

In any case, the split has just been done now. That's fine. Moreover, the vast majority of the content of the page has long ago been rewritten in preparation for something like a split. And still, new subpages were created (one of which, the objective reader would note, was created by my own hand).

All this, keep in mind, is despite the fact that the arguments I've made have hardly been rebuffed. I've not been the lone voice defending a lightly synoptic article, or even a voice with the most expertise in the area with that view. But that's something that the record demonstrates, for anyone who's really serious and cares to take the effort to read and comprehend what's been said.

Some other silly gripes here, but they're not even worth responding to. (i.e., "Next on the docket?" At a time when I was the lone writer for weeks at a time, spending hours of note-taking and rewriting, when nobody else was making any positive contributions, I wrote a table of contents to-do list -- so?) No clue what the SSP-subsumed-in-Psych comment is all about. I do remember promptly correcting an image when someone requested it, but I'm not sure that has a villainous enough character to qualify to whatever DrW is referring to.

Now evidently DrW wants to erase the entire content of the article, and show us that PSP and SSP have absolutely nothing in common. That's nonsense, and it's obviously nonsense. But time will tell.

One final note: it seems presently fashionable to rail against Wikipedia when one has a complaint against an academic argument which one finds tiresome. I think your screed's title would have better read, "Why some academics don't respect anyone"; because there's simply no sense of what the content of the dispute is, what the issues are, etc.; there are only issues of ad hominem, what I have done, why I am a poor man, a sad man, a little man. ("...and he put things on the docket! What hubris!") Lucidish _{{ Ben S. Nelson }} 04:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Social psychology/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Hi, I am new to this. I am a Social psychologist (PhD) and would like to be involved. Can anyone tell me what areas you need help with and how I can get started writing and editing articles etc? thanksPsyxologos 04:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 20:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)