The Proper Study of Social Psychology

Abstract

I am deeply honored to receive this award from your Social Psychology Section, and I am especially pleased to find myself on the same honor roll as my good friends and colleagues in the Sociology Department at UCLA: Ralph Turner, Harold Garfinkel, and Melvin Seeman. My pleasure is tempered by my deep regrets that John Thibaut is no longer alive to share this award with me. My finest contributions to psychology were possible only through my collaboration with John. (I might note that August 20, 1999, was the fortieth anniversary of the publication of our book The Social Psychology of Groups [Thibaut and Kelley 1959].) To speak of the proper study of psychology is to imply that there is something wrong with where and how we direct our efforts in our field. I will first provide some basis for that conclusion and suggest some reasons for our problems. I will then describe one way, which I regard as a very good way, to improve upon how, as Garfinkel would say, we do the of My comments will deal largely with how psychologists are going about the work that they represent as social psychology. I realize that it is not entirely appropriate for me to criticize my psychology colleagues here, but I know best how psychology is done on our side of the fence, and I must leave it to you to think about how these comments may apply to the work of psychologists on your side.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 32 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.