Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Personality and Social Psychology Review
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rozin, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Rozin, P.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Social Psychology and Science: Some Lessons From Solomon Asch

Paul Rozin

Department of Psychology University of Pennsylvania

This article presents a methodological critique of the predominant research paradigms in modern social psychology, particularly social cognition, taking the approach of Solomon Asch as a more appropriate model. The critique has 2 parts. First, the dominant model of science in the field is appropriate only for a well-developed science, in which basic, real-world phenomena have been identified, important invariances in these phenomena have been documented, and appropriate model systems that capture the essence of these phenomena have been developed. These requirements are not met for most of the phenomena under study in social psychology. Second, the model of science in use is a caricature of the actual scientific process in well-developed sciences such as biology. Such research is often not model or even hypothesis driven, but rather relies on "informed curiosity" to motivate research. Descriptive studies are considered important and make up a substantial part of the literature, and there is less exclusive reliance on experiment. The two parts of the critique are documented by analysis of articles in appropriate psychology and biology journals. The author acknowledges that important and high quality work is currently being done in social psychology, but believes that the field has maladaptively narrowed the range of the phenomena and methodological approaches that it deems acceptable or optimal.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2-14 (2001)
DOI: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0501_1


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Pers Soc Psychol RevHome page
H. T. Reis
Reinvigorating the Concept of Situation in Social Psychology
Personality and Social Psychology Review, November 1, 2008; 12(4): 311 - 329.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Black PsychologyHome page
S. M. Bediako, A. R. Lavender, and Z. Yasin
Racial Centrality and Health Care Use Among African American Adults With Sickle Cell Disease
Journal of Black Psychology, November 1, 2007; 33(4): 422 - 438.
[Abstract] [PDF]