Key Differences Between the Views of Three Social Psychologists

1455 Words3 Pages

Analyze the key differences between the views of experimental, humanistic/experimental and critical social psychologists. Which of these views do you find most convincing and why?

To answer this question the three different viewpoints will be briefly summarized then the main differences between them will be outlined and analyzed. Once this has been achieved then the most convincing viewpoint wills he highlighted and the reasons why it is thought to be the best will be addressed. Ultimately a short summary of the key findings of the essay will be repeated and a conclusion drawn.

The main points of experimental social psychology are that social behavior can not only be described but can be put into measurable terms (McGhee P. 2002 P.7) so they can be evaluated and that behavior is attributable to internal and external stimuli, whether those stimuli are based in the past present or future. Also that commonly this behavior is regular (McGhee P. 2002 P.7). Experimental social psychology suggests that the links between the stimuli and response can be determined through rigors empirical experimentation (McGhee P. 2002 P.7). It qualifies that not all queries can be tested and that people are not predictable. Experimental social psychologists therefore believe that as their approach is scientific and is the most reliable method for understanding social behavior. It seems that experimental social psychologists hold no more importance on external or internal factors and believe that both have a part to play in determining behavior (McGhee P. 2002 P.7).

The main views of the humanistic/experimental social psychologist are that the basis of social psychology should be in the lived personal experiences of individuals, ...

... middle of paper ...

... factors when formulating theories to experiment on, they pin their beliefs on most factors and behaviors being ultimately measurable. Because experimental social psychology takes both internal and external factors as being important it seems to be the most convincing argument.

References:

McGhee P. (2002) cited in Wetherell, M. McGhee, P. and Stevens, R. (2002) "Defining Social Psychology" in Sapsford, R. (Ed) "Issues for social psychology" Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Stevens, R. (2002) cited in Wetherell, M. McGhee, P. and Stevens, R. (2002) "Defining Social Psychology" in Sapsford, R. (Ed) "Issues for social psychology" Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Wetherell, M. cited in Wetherell, M. McGhee, P. and Stevens, R. (2002) "Defining Social Psychology" in Sapsford, R. (Ed) "Issues for social psychology" Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Open Document