| Methodological Problems with the Academic Sources of Popular Psychology: Context, Inference, and Measurement Contributor(s): Ausch, Robert (Author) |
|
 |
ISBN: 1498524141 ISBN-13: 9781498524148 Publisher: Lexington Books OUR PRICE: $121.77 Product Type: Hardcover - Other Formats Published: February 2016 |
| Additional Information |
| BISAC Categories: - Psychology | Assessment, Testing & Measurement - Psychology | Cognitive Psychology & Cognition - Psychology | Research & Methodology |
| Dewey: 150.72 |
| LCCN: 2015047363 |
| Physical Information: 0.9" H x 6.1" W x 9.1" (1.19 lbs) 236 pages |
| Descriptions, Reviews, Etc. |
| Publisher Description: Methodological Problems with the Academic Sources of Popular Psychology: Context, Inference, and Measurement examines the relationship between academic and popular psychology from a critical perspective with a focus on issues of methodology. The monograph traces the path from ideas in reputable popular psychology back to the original academic research tradition from which the claims were generated. It also addresses the conceptual and methodological controversies with respect to the original research typically ignored or played down in popular writing. This book covers a range of topics including the question of universal biases in judgment, resurgent notions of "fast" thinking and a cognitive unconscious, the psychology of happiness and other "positive" psychologies, the effects of parenting on child outcomes, and more general issues related to psychological tests and measures. The methodological problems that emerge include problems with generalizing from specific experimental conditions, highly biased sampling, lack of replication of findings, lack of shared referents across subfields, even different authors, as well as confusion around basic statistical and mathematical issues. Methodological Problems with the Academic Sources of Popular Psychology: Context, Inference, and Measurement reviews these issues extensively, offering both a sense of the history and pervasiveness of these issues in the field itself and an opportunity to review and master these difficult ideas. |