Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T07:23:20.640Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political diversity versus stimuli diversity: Alternative ways to improve social psychological science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2015

Thomas Kessler ,
Jutta Proch ,
Stefanie Hechler  and
Larissa A. Nägler
Thomas Kessler
Affiliation:
Social Psychology Department, Friedrich Schiller University, D-07743 Jena, Germany. [email protected]@[email protected]@uni-jena.dehttp://www.sozialpsychologie.uni-jena.de
Jutta Proch
Affiliation:
Social Psychology Department, Friedrich Schiller University, D-07743 Jena, Germany. [email protected]@[email protected]@uni-jena.dehttp://www.sozialpsychologie.uni-jena.de
Stefanie Hechler
Affiliation:
Social Psychology Department, Friedrich Schiller University, D-07743 Jena, Germany. [email protected]@[email protected]@uni-jena.dehttp://www.sozialpsychologie.uni-jena.de
Larissa A. Nägler
Affiliation:
Social Psychology Department, Friedrich Schiller University, D-07743 Jena, Germany. [email protected]@[email protected]@uni-jena.dehttp://www.sozialpsychologie.uni-jena.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Instead of enhancing diversity in research groups, we suggest that in order to reduce biases in social psychological research a more basic formulation and systematic testing of theories is required. Following the important but often neglected ecological research approach would lead to systematic variation of stimuli and sometimes representative sampling of stimuli for specific environments.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 38 , 2015 , e148
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brunswik, E. (1955) Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological Review 62:193–217.Google Scholar
Cumming, G. (2014) The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science 25:7–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dhami, M. K., Hertwig, R. & Hoffrage, U. (2004) The role of representative design in an ecological approach to cognition. Psychological Bulletin 130:959–88.Google Scholar
Kessler, T. & Cohrs, J. C. (2008) The evolution of authoritarian processes: How to commit group members to group norms. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 12:73–84.Google Scholar
Kessler, T. & Mummendey, A. (2001) Is there any scapegoat around? Determinants of intergroup conflict at different categorization levels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81:1090–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lu, L., Yuan, Y. C. & McLeod, P. L. (2012) Twenty-five years of hidden profiles in group decision making: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review 16:54–75.Google Scholar
Luchins, A. (1951) On recent usage of the Einstellung-Effect as a test of rigidity. Journal of Consulting Psychology 15:89–94.Google Scholar
Proch, J. & Kessler, T. (2014) Is disgust a conservative emotion? Paper presented at the 37th Annual Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology (ISPP), Rome, Italy, July 4, 2014.Google Scholar
Rozin, P. (2001) Social psychology and science: Some lessons from Solomon Asch. Personality and Social Psychology Review 5:2–14.Google Scholar
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D. & Simonsohn, U. (2011) False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science 22(11):1359–66.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P. & Flament, C. (1971) Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology 1:149–78.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1979) The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In: Psychology of intergroup relations, ed. Worchel, S. & Austin, W. G., pp. 7–24. Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar