Definitions need to be precise and consistent: A reply to Haslam with suggestions for the future.
Saved in:
| Title: | Definitions need to be precise and consistent: A reply to Haslam with suggestions for the future. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Cypryańska, Marzena (AUTHOR), Nezlek, John B. (AUTHOR), Jaskółowska, Aleksandra (AUTHOR), Formanowicz, Magdalena Maria (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Journal of Social Psychology. 2017, Vol. 157 Issue 2, p148-151. 4p. |
| Subjects: | Motivation (Psychology), Personality, Self-evaluation, Human behavior, Thought & thinking |
| Abstract: | In his reply to our critique of research on self-humanizing, Haslam claims that we used a narrow definition of self-humanizing that ignored the evidence from the correlational research he and his colleagues have done. We disagree. First, we relied upon a definition of self-humanizing based upon comparative judgments that Haslam and colleagues have consistently used. Second, we were well aware of the correlational research he and his colleagues have done. We simply did not think, and do not think, these correlations verified the existence of self-humanizing as defined. In his reply, Haslam offered a new definition of self-humanizing that defines self-humanizing in terms of correlations between comparative judgments and ratings of how much traits reflect human nature. Although we believe this change represents some progress, numerous issues in the study of self-humanizing remain to be resolved. We offer some suggestions for future research on this important topic. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER] |
| Copyright of Journal of Social Psychology is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | In his reply to our critique of research on self-humanizing, Haslam claims that we used a narrow definition of self-humanizing that ignored the evidence from the correlational research he and his colleagues have done. We disagree. First, we relied upon a definition of self-humanizing based upon comparative judgments that Haslam and colleagues have consistently used. Second, we were well aware of the correlational research he and his colleagues have done. We simply did not think, and do not think, these correlations verified the existence of self-humanizing as defined. In his reply, Haslam offered a new definition of self-humanizing that defines self-humanizing in terms of correlations between comparative judgments and ratings of how much traits reflect human nature. Although we believe this change represents some progress, numerous issues in the study of self-humanizing remain to be resolved. We offer some suggestions for future research on this important topic. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 00224545 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/00224545.2017.1282851 |
