2814380
| Question | Answer |
| Divisions in SP | •Result from psychologists taking different positions on two central/basic questions - epistemology & ontology •Stance taken influences the knowledge produced about any given topic •All research starts from a specific epistemological & ontological position •**Due to different epistemological & ontological positions, research findings from different SP perspectives cant be combined** |
| Epistemology | Nature, sources, limits of knowledge How we know what we think we know & How certain we can be that social world is actually what we think it is |
| Ontology | Nature of being & existence About assumptions used to characterise human beings & what it means to be human |
| Quantitative vs Qualitative: Distinction vs Interpretation | •Kind of knowledge claims made influenced by epistemological stance •E.g. survey & observations represent external 'real world' Contrasts w/ social constructionists - not assume straight fwd representation; explicitly ack presence of researcher w/in research process & their role in interpreting data |
| Experiment | •Distinctive feature = element of control •Generally models world w/ variables •Causes/influences distinguished & considered separately (or in limited/specific combinations) •Definite contrast w/ 'untidier world' of DP (overlapping & contradictory influences) •Cog. researchers may be aware of complexity of social world but choose to put much of detail to one side •DP very interested in 'local meanings' - keep the complexity & challenge emphasis on rationality |
| Project of SP? | •Cog. experimental approach: 'understanding causes of behaviour' (Eagly & Chaiken) - relevant to prejudice, obedience & group conflict •Critical approach: draw attention to issues of power, linked to Marxist critique •Objectivity not a neutral, a-political position but obscures inequalities & can contribute to their perpetuation •Power & inequality v. relevant due to work of psychs implicated w/ institutional & social definitions of normality & pathology |
| Emotion | •Resists dualistic positioning on I/S axis (Parkinson) •Distinctly SP as they 'play out in course of interpersonal episodes' that are located in broader cultural contexts •Still puzzle to SP - numerous theories & methods •Research starts in philosophy, moves to experimental (objectively measurable components) •Future research req' better ways of specifying verbal & nonverbal aspects •Experimental social psych continually makes refinements to epistemology & ontology to engage w/ complexities of topic •Theoretically & methodologically dynamic •Dynamism reflects fact that cog. soc. dominant but continues to renew itself |
| Attitudes | •Cog. experimental approach: LaPiere, Ajzen - linked research Q's: precise connections between attitudes & behaviour •Ajzen - scientific social psych study: devise possible interventions to produce changes in people's behaviour •DP - relative new comer. P&W challenge cog. experiment but not had significant impact as cog. still dominant •LaPiere & P&W concerned w/ attitudes to others - part of tradition of SP •Different socio-historic contexts (1930's USA; 1980's N. Zealand) - context central to P&W •P&W - 2 approaches to ethnicity: 1) as a category; 2) as a discourse resource |
| Prejudice & Conflict | •Research located in social & historic contexts •Ontology shifts in how prejudice has been conceptualised in SP - from viewing it as resulting from abnormal individual psych dev to seeing it as understandable not senseless •DP - how a/c's of political violence by Ps & Cs activists help sustain incompatible constructions of political realities of N. Ireland situation •Cog. Soc. - contact hypothesis = dominant approach to conflict resolution •Insights from DP used to interrogate cog.soc. & suggest new q's for SP •Topic dogged by focus on individual side of I/S dualism •Despite many psychologists ack. cultural & political elements of everyday r'ships, much SP work on prejudice treated it as individually not socially produced |
| Group Processes | •General SP assumption: group has -ve influence on individual •Historic background re SIT - v. influential theory in contemporary SP •SIT aim to explain violence towards groups defined by race/ethnicity •Billig - locates Tajfel's work in socio-historic context (argument against irrational bio instincts) •Billig - limitations of SIT & rational person: needs to review emotions & power, otherwise ignore intensity of hatred in bigotry & its ideological nature - linked to political context in which it occurs |
| Bystander Intervention (1) | •Highly publicised account of how people heard/witnessed fatal attack but didn't attempt to intervene •Darley & Latane - experiments re circumstances where bystander intervention more/less likely •Whether failure to act attributed to individuals or circumstances •D&L's aim - counter suggestion bystanders were personally at fault & that others in same situation wouldn't act differently •Strengths - aim to produce objective, unbiased findings applicable across different social contexts |
| Bystander Intervention (2) | •But objectivity not possible! •In attempting to be, researchers risk distorting a problem by oversimplifying it & omitting relevant considerations linked to specific socio-historical context •Cherry - D&L ignored gendered aspects of KG case, reflecting contemporary attitudes towards violence against women •Experiments can be devised to include such aspects but would still be a simplification •Qualitative research foreground meanings which experiment might ignore |
| Bystander Intervention (3) | •Cherry highlights how researcher influenced by his/her own socio-historical context & may have different thinking beyond prevailing values & views of the world •Any research involves interpretation & reflects the extent to which researcher is inescapably part of same context that s/he researching •Good research practice = ack. locatedness & actively consider how it had shaped the research (methods & findings) - i.e. reflexivity |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.