No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 June 2004
Social-cognitive psychologists' problem orientation is, in itself, no threat to the generation of normatively neutral general theory. What would put general theory at risk is, rather, the reliance on a valence-balancing explanatory heuristic. Fortunately, social-cognitive research communities have resources to override this heuristic and utilize more epistemically effective cultural tools.
1. They are also concerned that the phenomena in question are not as contranormative as claimed, a mistake in judgment that leads to unwarranted gloominess about human nature. This is an interesting but independent issue.
2. Not least because psychologists were typically unaware of the philosophical literature in which these claims appeared.
3. Sampson (1971) suggests that balance theory describes a tendency with substantial adaptive advantages, including provision of “noncontradictory guidelines to action” (p. 131).
4. Were this not the case, K&F themselves would have reason to be profoundly pessimistic about human capacities. It takes more than recognition of their historically adaptive function to make one less gloomy about human hankerings for fat and sugar. You need to know that there are ways to outwit one's craving for crullers.