Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-26T22:52:16.530Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On vagueness and parochialism in psychological research on groups

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2022

Kyle G. Ratner Open the ORCID record for Kyle G. Ratner [Opens in a new window] ,
David L. Hamilton  and
Marilynn B. Brewer
Kyle G. Ratner
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA93106, USA kyle.ratner@psych.ucsb.eduhttps://spl.psych.ucsb.edu
David L. Hamilton
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA93106, USA kyle.ratner@psych.ucsb.eduhttps://spl.psych.ucsb.edu
Marilynn B. Brewer
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH43210, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pietraszewski asserts that social psychological research on groups is too vague, tautological, and dependent on intuitions to be theoretically useful. We disagree. Pietraszewski's contribution is thought-provoking but also incomplete and guilty of many of the faults he attributes to others. Instead of rototilling the existing knowledge landscape, we urge for more integration of new and old ideas.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e119
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Amodio, D. M., & Ratner, K. G. (2011). A memory systems model of implicit social cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 143–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In Srull, T. K., & Wyer, R. S. Jr. (Eds.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 1–36). Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B., & Caporael, L. R. (2006). An evolutionary perspective on social identity: Revisiting groups. In Schaller, M., Simpson, J., & Kenrick, D. (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology (pp. 143–161). Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Caporael, L. R. (1997). The evolution of truly social cognition: The core configurations model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1(4), 276–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cunningham, W. A., Zelazo, P. D., Packer, D. J., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2007). The iterative reprocessing model: A multilevel framework for attitudes and evaluation. Social Cognition, 25(5), 736–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum model of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influence of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In Zanna, M. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1–74). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guest, O., & Martin, A. E. (2021). How computational modeling can force theory building in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 789–802.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamilton, D., & Gifford, R. (1976). Illusory correlation in interpersonal perception: A cognitive basis of stereotypic judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 12(4), 392–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., & Lickel, B. (1998). Perceiving social groups: The importance of the entitativity continuum. In Sedikides, C., Schopler, J., & Insko, C. A. (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 47–74). Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Johnson, A. L., Crawford, M. T., Sherman, S. J., Rutchick, A. M., Hamilton, D. L., Ferreira, M. B., & Petrocelli, J. V. (2006). A functional perspective on group memberships: Differential need fulfillment in a group typology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(6), 707–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis, A. C., Sherman, S. J., & Uhles, A. N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 223–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lockwood, P. L., Apps, M. A., & Chang, S. W. (2020). Is there a “social” brain? Implementations and algorithms. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(10), 802–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marques, J. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Leyens, J.-P. (1988). The black sheep effect: Extremity of judgments towards ingroup members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, J. P. (2006). Mentalizing and Marr: An information processing approach to the study of social cognition. Brain Research, 1079(1), 66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, S. J., Castelli, L., & Hamilton, D. L. (2002). The spontaneous use of a group typology as an organizing principle in memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed