At 2:46 PM -0400 8/11/03, Aubyn Fulton wrote:
PAUL K. BRANDON wrote�
The Psych Bull article that Will is referring to is a meta-analysis, with
all the limitations of its breed. Since it's based on a wide variety of
verbal reports of what individuals apparently mostly politicians) say that
they would do or say in a specified situation, it is of limited value.
I don�t understand Dr. Brandon�s disappointment with Psych Bull for
publishing the article � unless he is disappointed with all published
reports of meta-analysis (which would make him one disappointed
psychologist indeed). There is a long and broad literature on the
psychology of political ideology, and it seems appropriate for Psych Bull
to publish a review of this literature from time to time. Jost and company
state up front that whether or not conservative ideology is uniquely
linked to the set of psychological needs and motives they suggest is an
empirical question, and they use acceptable empirical methods to support
their answer. Psych Bull also published a response to Jost et. al. that
argues in the alternative � that the rigid avoidance of ambiguity is not
uniquely associated with conservatives, but is an attribute of ideological
extremists of all kinds. Jost then replies with their explanation of why
they think this is not true, and that conservatives really are uniquely
rigid. I don�t know that these articles will be the last word on this
topic, and it is certainly possible to disagree with elements of both, but
from what I can tell they seem to be of a type and quality that is
consistent with the scope and mission of Psych Bull. Maybe next time they
will publish a review of research on the motivations of liberal ideology.
Aubrey--
I agree with most of your points, and will admit to not having read
the article itself (just a couple of detailed descriptions of it).
You are correct that I have problems with meta-analyses in general.
In the medical field, there have been a number of cases where meta
analyses based on large numbers of small studies have reached
different conclusions from later rigorous large studies.
Much is dependent on the choices made by the authors in setting
selection criteria and categorizing the individual studies.
A good example in psychology is the controversy on the effects of
reward on performance, where meta-analyses which separate studies
based on whether reward was contingent on a specified level of
performance from those which grouped all studies which involved
reward, regardless of the contingency involved.
BTW-- a literature review is not the same as a meta analysis.
--
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
* http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
