Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T16:00:08.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

QTIPs: Questionable theoretical and interpretive practices in social psychology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2015

Mark J. Brandt  and
Travis Proulx
Mark J. Brandt
Affiliation:
Department of Social Psychology, Tilburg University, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands. [email protected]@tilburguniversity.eduhttp://mjbrandt.com/https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/webwijs/show/t.proulx.htm
Travis Proulx
Affiliation:
Department of Social Psychology, Tilburg University, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands. [email protected]@tilburguniversity.eduhttp://mjbrandt.com/https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/webwijs/show/t.proulx.htm
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One possible consequence of ideological homogeneity is the misinterpretation of data collected with otherwise solid methods. To help identify these issues outside of politically relevant research, we name and give broad descriptions to three questionable interpretive practices described by Duarte et al. and introduce three additional questionable theoretical practices that also reduce the theoretical power and paradigmatic scope of psychology.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 38 , 2015 , e136
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

Brandt, M. J., Reyna, C., Chambers, J. R., Crawford, J. T. & Wetherell, G. (2014) The ideological-conflict hypothesis: Intolerance among both liberals and conservatives. Current Directions in Psychological Science 23(1):27–34.Google Scholar
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D. & Kelly, D. R. (2007) Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92(6):1087–101.Google Scholar
Hagger, M. S. (2014) Avoiding the “déjà-variable” phenomenon: Social psychology needs more guides to constructs. Frontiers in Psychology 5. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00052.Google Scholar
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W. & Sulloway, F. J. (2003) Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin 129(3):339–75. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jussim, L., Crawford, J. T., Stevens, S. T. & Anglin, S. M. (in press b) The politics of social psychological science, I: Distortions in the social psychology of intergroup relations. In: Bridging ideological divides: The Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology, ed. Valdeso, P. & Graham, J.. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1959) The logic of scientific discovery. Hutchinson.Google Scholar