Strains in experimental social psychology: A textual anaylsis of the development of experimentation in social psychology

  • Stam H
  • Radtke H
  • Lubek I
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

A textual analysis of post-World War II social psychology methodology manuals and handbook chapters on "methods" indicates that the introduction of the experimental method was enforced and gradually strengthened through the use of scientific rhetoric and the minimization of alternative research strategies. As a consequence, by the 1960s experimentation had become such an established identifying feature of psychological social psychology that the acceptability of ideas in the field came to depend largely on the ability of authors to couch them in the language of the experiment. Text writers continually shored up the defenses of scientific legitimacy and denigrated all other types of argument. We explore three sources of tension or strains evident as contradictions in these texts: (1) between a rational experimenter's carefully following prescribed, logic-generated scientific practices and the investigator's artfully or intuitively designing research; (2) between social psychologists' missionary activities of proselytizing the experiment as the primary research method and social psychologists' apologies and insecurities expressed about using experiments; and (3) between the treatment of participants as docile and submissive versus portraying them as underhanded and damaging to the outcome of the research. In addition, we briefly reexamine the strain (4) between sober scientific experimentation and a playful "fun and games" approach to experimentation (Lubek & Stam, 1995). (C) 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Stam, H. J., Radtke, H. L., & Lubek, I. (2000). Strains in experimental social psychology: A textual anaylsis of the development of experimentation in social psychology. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 36(4), 365–382. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6696(200023)36:4<365::aid-jhbs5>3.0.co;2-s

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free