No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
On Social Psychological Handy Work: An Interpretive Review of The Handbook of Social Psychology, Second Edition*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 August 2014
Abstract
This paper reviews the new Handbook of Social Psychology, with a special eye towards its utility for political scientists. The review focuses on theory, methodology, substantive areas of social psychological research, and political applications of social psychological findings. Special attention is paid to Handbook articles of particular merit and application to political science. These include articles on cognitive theory, experimentation, observational analyses and sociometry, as well as articles which add to our knowledge of such politically important problems as reasoning, compliance, and decision making. Throughout, important findings relevant to the operations of politics are spotlighted. These include, inter alia, cognitive biases towards the perception of unequal influence, the “risky shift,” constraints on selective perception, and characteristics of leadership behavior. Omissions, theoretical flaws, and errors due to the “datedness” of findings are also discussed.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1977
Footnotes
*
The Handbook of Social Psychology, 2nd edition, eds., Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968–69, 5 volumes. Price: $16.95 each volume.)
References
1 Zajonc, Robert B., “Cognitive Theories in Social Psychology,” I, 320–411 Google Scholar. All references to articles in the new Handbook will refer to volume and page number, unless special circumstances arise.
2 Sarbin, Theodore R. and Allen, Vernon L., “Role Theory,” I, 488–567 Google Scholar.
3 Hall, Calvin S. and Lindzey, Gardner, “The Relevance of Freudian Psychology and Related Viewpoints for the Social Sciences,” I, 245–319 Google Scholar.
4 But, as Kline's recent study suggests, psychoanalytic theory is actually not as resistant to verification as one might assume. See Kline, Paul, Fact and Fantasy in Freudian Theory (London: Methuen, 1972)Google Scholar.
5 One of the most influential forms is that outlined by Loevinger, Jane, “The Meaning and Measurement of Ego Development,” American Psychologist, 21 (1966), 195–206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 For influential applications of Maslowian theory to political science see Knutson, Jeanne M., The Human Basis of the Polity (Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, 1972)Google Scholar; and Renshon, Stanley A., Psychological Needs and Political Behavior: A Theory of Personality and Political Efficacy (New York: The Free Press, 1974)Google Scholar.
7 Erikson's, Erik seminal work is, of course, Childhood and Society (New York: Norton, 1958)Google Scholar.
8 For a good treatment of this aspect of Freud's work, see Roazen, Paul, Freud: Political and Social Thought (New York: Knopf, 1968)Google Scholar.
9 For a stimulating recent application, see Rogin, Michael Paul, Fathers and Children: Andrew Jackson and the Subjugation of the American Indian (New York: Knopf, 1975)Google Scholar; a useful overview is Lifton, Robert Jay, ed. Explorations in Psychohistory: The Well-fleet Papers (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1975)Google Scholar.
10 Berger, Seymour M. and Lambert, William W., “Stimulus-Response Theory in Contemporary Social Psychology,” I, 81–178 Google Scholar.
11 Ibid., pp. 88–89.
12 Ibid., p. 89.
13 Ibid., p. 91.
14 Ibid., p. 95.
15 For an attempt at synthesis, see Waldman, Sidney, Foundations of Political Action: An Exchange Theory of Politics (Boston: Little, Brown, 1972)Google Scholar.
16 Skinner, B. F., Beyond Freedom and Dignity (New York: Knopf, 1971)Google Scholar. See the critique of Skinner, by Watts, Meredith, “B. F. Skinner and the Technological Control of Social Behavior,” American Political Science Review, 69 (03, 1975), 214–227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Skinner responds in the same issue, pp. 228–229.
17 The major impetus here was provided by Bandura, Albert, Principles of Behavior Modification (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1969)Google Scholar.
18 This is the sort of counterintuitive proposition that runs through much work in cognitive dissonance. For an application of the proposition, see Festinger, Leon, Riecken, Henry, and Schachter, Stanley, When Prophecy Fails (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
19 Zajonc, I, 332–335.
20 Ibid., p. 336.
21 Ibid., p. 337.
22 Ibid., p. 351.
23 Ibid., p. 378.
24 The original criticism was made by Chapanis, N. P. and Chapanis, A., “Cognitive Dissonance: Five Years Later,” Psychological Bulletin, 61 (1964), 1–22 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
25 Sperlich, Peter, Conflict and Harmony in Human Affairs (Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1971)Google Scholar.
26 Sarbin, and Allen, , “Role Theory,” I, 488–568 Google Scholar.
27 This is indicated by the large proportion of the Sarbin and Allen chapter given over to these topics and the small proportion devoted to actual propositions about role behavior in the real world.
28 Heine, Patricke J., Personality in Social Theory (Chicago: Aldine, 1971), 33 Google Scholar.
29 Mosteller, Frederick and Tukey, John W., “Data Analysis, Including Statistics,” II, 80–203 Google Scholar.
30 I have found these techniques used specifically by just one political scientist. See Tufte, Edward R., “Determinants of the Outcomes of Midterm Congressional Elections,” American Political Science Review, 69 (09, 1975), 812–826, 819 nCrossRefGoogle Scholar.
31 Scott, William A., “Attitude Measurement,” II, 204–356 Google Scholar.
32 For a review, see Gross, Steven Jay and Niman, C. Michael, “Attitude-Behavior Consistency: A Review,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 39, Fall, 1975, 358–369 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
33 See Pierce, John C. and Rose, Douglas, “Non-attitudes and American Public Opinion,” American Political Science Review, 68 (06, 1974), 626–649 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, with subsequent comments and rejoinder by Philip Converse and Pierce and Rose, Ibid., 650–666.
34 For a hard-hitting, if somewhat erratic, critique of social psychology in these terms, see Moscovici, Serge, “Society and Theory in Social Psychology,” in The Context of Social Psychology: A Critical Assessment, ed. Israel, Joachim and Tajfel, Henri, European Monographs in Social Psychology, 2 (London and New York: Academic Press, 1972)Google Scholar.
35 Cannell, Charles F. and Kahn, Robert L., “Interviewing,” II, 526–595 Google Scholar.
36 Ibid., p. 546–548.
37 Ibid., p. 576, ff.
38 Whiting, John W. M., “Methods and Problems in Cross-Cultural Research,” II, 693–728 Google Scholar.
39 Ibid., p. 703.
40 But see the at least implicit realization of the problem in Gray, Virginia, “Innovation in the States: A Diffusion Study,” American Political Science Review, 67 (12, 1973), 1174–1185, at 1180 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
41 Aronson, Elliot and Carlsmith, J. Merrill, “Experimentation in Social Psychology,” II, 1–79 Google Scholar.
42 Ibid., pp. 43, 56.
43 Weick, Karl E., “Systematic Observational Methods,” II, 357–451 Google Scholar.
44 Ibid., pp. 373–376.
45 Lindzey, Gardner and Byrne, Donn, “Measurement of Social Choice and Interpersonal Attractiveness,” II, 452–525 Google Scholar.
46 Zigler, Edward and Child, Irvin L., “Socialization,” III, 450–589 Google Scholar.
47 Inkeles, Alex and Levinson, Daniel J., “National Character: Modal Personality and Socio-Cultural Systems,” IV, 418–506 Google Scholar.
48 Gibb, Cecil A., “Leadership,” IV, 205–282 Google Scholar.
49 Zigler and Child virtually admit this. See pp. 508, 549, 555.
50 Inkeles and Levinson, IV, 428.
51 For a recent criticism of this view, with specific reference to colonial America, see Henretta, James A., “The Morphology of New England Society in the Colonial Period,” in The Family in History, ed. Rabb, Theodore and Rotberg, Robert (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1971), 191–211 Google Scholar.
52 Inkeles and Levinson, IV, 481–482.
53 Gibb, IV, 212–213.
54 For a useful recent discussion, see Sanford, Nevitt, “Authoritarian Personality in Contemporary Perspective,” in Handbook of Political Psychology, ed. Knutson, Jeanne M. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1973), 139–170 Google Scholar.
55 Perhaps the best single source is Nie, Norman, with Anderson, Kristi, “Mass Political Belief Systems Revisited: Political Change and Attitude Structure,” Journal of Politics, 36, (08, 1974), 540–591 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
56 McGuire, William J., “The Nature of Attitudes and Attitude Change,” III, 136–314, 188 Google Scholar.
57 Berkowitz, Leonard, “Social Motivation,” III, 50–135, 98Google Scholar.
58 Ibid., pp. 88–89.
59 McGuiie, III, 202.
60 Ibid., p. 154; see also the more exhaustive review in Rosenberg, Seymour, “Mathematical Models of Social Behavior,” I, 179–244, 187–193Google Scholar.
61 The fullest treatment is Flavell, John, The Developmental Psychology of Jean Piaget (Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
62 Zajonc, I, 334–335.
63 Ibid.
64 Ibid., p. 347.
65 Collins, Barry E. and Raven, Bertram H., “Group Structure: Attraction, Coalitions, Communication, and Power,” IV, 102–204, 179Google Scholar. See Milgram's own account in Milgram, Stanley, Obedience to Authority (New York: Harper and Row, 1974)Google Scholar.
66 Collins and Raven, IV, 179.
67 Gibb, IV, 218–228.
68 A related argument may be found in Sniderman, Paul M., Personality and Democratic Politics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975), 313–315 Google Scholar.
69 Miller, George A. and McNeill, David, “Psycholinguistics, III, 666–794, 755–756Google Scholar.
70 Ibid., p. 757–758.
71 Janis, Irving I., Victims of Groupthink (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1972), chap. 1Google Scholar.
72 Berkowitz, III, 94.
73 Kelley, Harold H. and Thibaut, John W., “Group Problem Solving,” IV, 1–101, 71–72Google Scholar.
74 Tajfel, Henri, “Social and Cultural Factors in Perception,” III, 315–394, 356Google Scholar.
75 Kelley and Thibaut, IV, 78–84. A recent reconsideration of the risky shift phenomenon, with a strong support of its importance, is given by Baron, Robert Steven, Royce, Card, and Baron, Penny H. in “Group Discussion and the Stingy Shift,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30 (10, 1974), 538–545, esp. 538CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
76 Shpairo, David and Crider, Andrew, “Psychophysiological Approaches in Social Psychology,” III, 1–49, 16Google Scholar.
77 Kelley and Thibaut, IV, 66.
76 Ibid., pp. 73–74.
79 Collins and Raven, IV, 137–155.
80 Etzioni, Amitai, “Social-Psychological Aspects of International Relations,” V, 538–601 Google Scholar.
81 Harding, John, Proshansky, Harold, Kutner, Bernard, and Chein, Isidor, “Prejudice and Ethnic Relations,” V, 1–76 Google Scholar.
82 Weiss, Walter, “Effects of the Mass Media on Communication,” V, 77–195 Google Scholar. For the Surgeon-General's report, see U.S. Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior, Television and Growing Up: The Impact of Media Violence (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1972)Google Scholar; recent corroboration of the impact of media violence in a very different setting is contained in Greenberg, Bradley S., “British Children and Televised Violence,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 38 (Winter, 1974–1975), 531–547 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
83 Getzels, J. W., “A Social Psychology of Education,” V, 459–537 Google Scholar.
84 Sears, David O., “Political Behavior,” V, 315–458 Google Scholar.
85 Sears, , “Political Socialization,” in Handbook of Political Science, ed. Greenstein, Fred I. and Polsby, Nelson W., II (Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1975), 93–153, 94Google Scholar.
86 Freeman, Howard E. and Giovannoni, Jeanne M., “Social Psychology of Mental Health,” V, 660–719 Google Scholar.
87 Ibid., p. 665.
88 Vroom, Victor H., “Industrial Social Psychology,” V, 196–268, see pp. 213, 233Google Scholar.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.