Zachowanie człowieka jako przedmiot badań psychologii społecznej – fakt czy mit?

Main Article Content

Dariusz Doliński

Abstrakt

Social psychologists only to very small degree investigate real human behavior. This article is an analysis of the reasons why this is so. The author points out that the otherwise valuable phenomenon of cognitive shift, which occurred precisely in the 1960s, naturally boosted the interest of social psychologists in such phenomena like stereotypes and values; at the same time, it unfortunately decreased interest in others, like aggression or altruism. Researchers today generally preferring to employ survey studies (even if they are a component of experiments being conducted) to analysis of behavioural variables. This gives rise to the question of whether social psychology remains a science of behavior.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Jak cytować
Doliński, D. (2020). Zachowanie człowieka jako przedmiot badań psychologii społecznej – fakt czy mit?. Człowiek I Społeczeństwo, 49, 167–174. https://doi.org/10.14746/cis.2020.49.9
Dział
ARTYKUŁY

Referencje

  1. Baumeister, R.F., Vohs, K.D., Funder, D.C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 396–403. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00051.x.
  2. Deutsche Bank. Raport Finansowy Polaków 2014. Plany na 2015 rok, https://www.deutschebank.pl/raport-portret-finansowy-polakow-2014.pdf, dostęp: 14.05.2020.
  3. Dolinski, D. (2018). Is psychology still a science of behaviour? Social Psychological Bulletin, 13, Article e25025. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.5964/spb.v13i2.5205.
  4. Dolinski, D. (2018a). Social psychology should be a science of feelings, thoughts and behaviour. Social Psychological Bulletin, 13, Article e26133. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.5964/spb.v13i2.26133.
  5. Grzyb, T. (2016). Why can’t we just ask? The influence of research methods on results. The case of “bystander effect”. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 47, 276–283. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1515/ppb-2016-0027
  6. Grzyb, T., Dolinski, D. (2017). Beliefs about obedience levels in studies conducted within the Milgram paradigm: Better than average effect and comparisons of typical behaviors by residents of different countries. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1632. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01632.
  7. Heisenberg, W. (1927). Ueber den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik and Mechanik. Zeitschrift für Physik, 43, 172–198.
  8. Kaplan, H.R. (1987). Lottery winners: The myth and reality. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 3, 168–178.
  9. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: Harper and Row.
  10. Motyl, M., et al., (2017). The state of social and personality science: Rotten to the core, not so bad, getting better, or getting worse. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 34–58. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000084.
  11. Peng, K., Nisbett, R.E., & Wong, N.Y.C. (1997). Validity problems comparing values across cultures and possible solutions. Psychological Methods, 2, 329–344.