Psychology NA‑class High‑importance

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology NA This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Welcome to the psychological social psychology subpage. This page was created in response to the discussion on the social psychology page. -Nick^talk 04:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a call for experts on this page. If you have any experience in psychological social psychology, please help out. Take a look at the original social psychology page and see what info should be moved (or copied) over here. -Nick^talk 23:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think an "Important terms and concepts" section would be nice. I think the original page's version goes into WAY too much detail (especially when there are pages available for some of those concepts), but a lot of the concepts listed are important to include.

One thing I noticed while looking for pages on SP-related topics was that there was a lot of redundancy and strange redirects. One other thing to do may be to try and find people to work on merging those pages.

Y'know, just a couple little thing. Dujang Prang 17:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Material from the Social psychology page has been moved here but is in a huge comment embedded in the text. Draw on it or delete obviously irrelevant parts of it as you see fit. -DoctorW 07:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a couple of hours today restoring much of the original content that pertained to the psychological study of social psychology, e.g. classic experiments, key concepts, etc. I also reworked the definition, focusing on Allport's explanation and the demarcation of psychological and sociological approaches. The article still needs some work and refinement, but it's starting to look better...

Jcbutler 22:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Serious attention to all this by serious content generators is both welcome and long overdue.

Must ask, though: why are the heuristics, persuasion, and group dynamics sections in both PSP and SSP wikis? Lucidish _{{ Ben S. Nelson }} 02:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those will probably come off the sociology page at some point, though there still will be some areas of overlap when all is said and done. I've been focusing on tidying up this page first. Also, I'm a little hesitant about doing too much with that page since I'm not a sociologist. Jcbutler 17:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that it's well past time that we put more meat back on the original SP article by underscoring what exactly those points of overlap really are. Otherwise, we're just going to be repeating ourselves. Anyway, good luck. Lucidish _{{ Ben S. Nelson }} 04:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the references listed on this page pertain to removed sociology content, or are not cited for other reasons. I'd like to suggest that we keep this page consistent with APA style and only list references that are cited in the article. A suggested reading section might be useful, but a comprehensive bibliography for social psychology would be far beyond the scope of what we can do here. --- User:Jcbutler

Hi J.C. Butler. It appears that you, yourself, added the multitude of references (on Revision as of 22:24, 19 October 2006 Jcbutler) that you just unilaterally removed without discussion. I suggest a discussion before seemingly drastic measures like that next time. Not sure what to do now. Those references were helpful, albeit a bibliography of sorts. Now I see you've added them back, sans E. Jones and Hastorf. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

Yes, I transferred all of them over from the old page a few days ago, with the thought of sorting them out later (later being today). Unless I've overlooked something, only the references specifically mentioned in the text are now listed. I got rid of a lot of them, including some that were really not related to social psychology at all, e.g. William James. Many of them were very high quality sources, just not "references." I still need to find Lewin, and of course there are all kinds of other thinks that need to be fixed and edited. I do apologize if I stepped on your toes there. Jcbutler 19:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dr. Butler. Thanks for your kind response. I clearly see your points. But, still, I had thought that E. Jones' work and Hastorf's works were, although not referenced in the article directly as per your requirement (APA), worthy of note. I will at some point try to integrate their work into the articles. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 14:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC) talk)[reply]

Although the information on this entry is becoming increasingly more accurate and pertinent to "psychological" social psychology, there is quite a bit of redundancy and unnecessary complexity that could be presented more simply. For example, information on attitudes, cognitive dissonance, attribution, persuasion, etc. is presented at the beginning under "major theories" and then again in the second half of the entry under "concepts." Some of these issues are discussed yet a third time under the heading of "research interests." I was thinking we should clean this up a bit by merging "theories and concepts" together, followed by the research methods section. This organization would also be more consistent with the main psychology page on wikipedia. Jcbutler 19:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was a lot of work... As promised (or as threatened?) I went ahead with my plan of cleaning up this page to eliminate the excessive level of redundancy that had emerged after the activity of many authors editing independently of each other. I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed thus far, and I made an effort to preserve original terminology and wording when possible. I also cleared up some extravagant mistakes that I hadn't even noticed before, e.g. the confusion of foot-in-the-door with reciprocity compliance tactics. It's still a work in progress, and yes, I need to fix the references yet again.

When I started rewriting this entry, I took all the separate little pieces on attitudes, etc. and combined them to eliminate redundancy. Then I alphabetized the topic list and put it under a single heading, "concepts." Unfortunately, this turned out to be excessively long, so I divided it in two pieces, based on a common distinction in social psychology between intra and inter-personal processes. This is a somewhat fuzzy distinction, but it works from an organizational point of view, and is frequently seen in textbooks, not to mention JPSP. I think it turned out fairly manageable, though we may want to play around with the categories a bit further, e.g. distinguishing social cognition from attitudes and groups from interpersonal relations. Something to consider as the article continues to grow, which it will probably do, if history is any guide.

So what happened to the theory? It was with some reluctance that I took out the ELM, since it was such a big chunk of this entry. The problem is that it is virtually impossible to list social psychological theories in any way that is fair and meaningful without doing a dissertation. If we put in the ELM, then why not Sternberg's Triangular theory of love? It's just as important and influencial. Why not attachment theory, impact theory, etc. etc. Imstead of doing a theory section, I distilled what I thought were the most important mechanisms out of the major theories (e.g. dissonance, automaticity) and included them with all the terms and concepts. What I've done isn't perfect and no doubt there is plenty of tweaking needed, but I highly recommend treating theories under their own Wikipedia entries. A list of links at the end of the article would facilitate this.Jcbutler 07:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could create an article that would list the theories' brief descriptions and its link.--Janarius 15:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Here's the article: list of social psychology theories.[reply]