I concur with Jost and Kruglanski (this issue) that the rift between social constructivist and experimental social psychology is bigger than it need be. I do so by showing that many social-psychological theories predict why we have the rift that we do. I use this method to point out that self-reflexivity is possible and desirable. This is especially the case when we try to consider how our own political and historical context influences our work. I give examples from my teaching of social psychology, and of contemporary research that has been informed by both social constructivist criticisms and by knowledge of experimental methods.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: W. W. Norton.
2.
Dasgupta, N., & Greenwald, A. T. (2001). On the malleability of automatic attitudes: Combating automatic prejudice with images of admired and disliked individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 800-814.
3.
Hegarty, P. J., & Pratto, F. (2001). The effects of social category norms on explanations for intergroup differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 723-735.
4.
Jackman, M. R. (1994). The velvet glove. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
5.
Maracek, J. (2000, March). Dancing through minefields: Qualitative studies in psychology. Talk presented at the Second biannual conference on qualitative methods in psychology, Lives through the lens of power, CUNY Graduate Center, New York.
6.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1970). The German ideology. New York: International Publishers. (Original work published 1846)
7.
Miller, C. T., Rothblum, E. D., Felicio, D., & Brand, P. (1995). Compensating for stigma: Obese and non-obese women's reactions to being visible. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1093-1106.
8.
Miller, D. T., Taylor, B., & Buck, M. L. (1991). Gender gaps: Who needs to be explained?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 5-12.
9.
Pratto, F. (1996, June). Ignoring inequality at our or their peril: Overnorming and theories as ideologies. Talk given at the symposium on “Right and wrong: Social psychological insights into ethics and morality,” Steven Samuels, Chair, at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, San Francisco.
10.
Pratto, F. (1999). The puzzle of continuing group inequality: Piecing together psychological, social, and cultural forces in social dominance theory. In M. P. Zanna, (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 31, pp. 191-263). San Diego: Academic.
11.
Pratto, F., & Cathey, C. (2002). The role of social ideologies in legitimizing political attitudes and public policy. In V. Ottati (Ed.), The social psychology of politics (pp. 131-151). New York: Plenum.
12.
Pratto, F., Stallworth, L. M., & Conway-Lanz, S. (1998). Social dominance orientation and the legitimization of policy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1853-1875.
13.
Pratto, F., & Walker, A. (2000). Dominance in disguise: Power, beneficence, and exploitation in personal relationships. In A. Lee-Chai & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The use and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of corruption (pp. 93-114). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
14.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-811.
16.
Van den Berghe, P. L. (1967). Race and racism. New York: Wiley.
17.
Word, C. O., Zanna, M. P., & Cooper, J. (1974). The nonverbal mediation of self-fulfilling prophecies in interracial interaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 109-120.
