鲍迈斯特和布什曼的政治冲突理论

IF 7.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychological Inquiry Pub Date : 2023-01-02 DOI:10.1080/1047840X.2023.2192645
Jarret T. Crawford
{"title":"鲍迈斯特和布什曼的政治冲突理论","authors":"Jarret T. Crawford","doi":"10.1080/1047840X.2023.2192645","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In their target article, Baumeister and Bushman (BB; this issue) describe a “cultural animal” theory of political partisan conflict and hostility. There is little positive I can say about this article. My critique focuses on six primary problems: (1) ignoring relevant scientific evidence that challenges their thesis; (2) shoe-horning contradictory psychological evidence to fit their thesis; (3) lack of specificity in their predictive model; (4) ignoring or ignorance of political realities that challenge their thesis; (5) logical incoherence in examples provided to bolster their thesis; and (6) statements or claims that are politically tone deaf at best, and offensive at worst.","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Baumeister and Bushman’s Conflicted Theory of Political Conflict\",\"authors\":\"Jarret T. Crawford\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/1047840X.2023.2192645\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In their target article, Baumeister and Bushman (BB; this issue) describe a “cultural animal” theory of political partisan conflict and hostility. There is little positive I can say about this article. My critique focuses on six primary problems: (1) ignoring relevant scientific evidence that challenges their thesis; (2) shoe-horning contradictory psychological evidence to fit their thesis; (3) lack of specificity in their predictive model; (4) ignoring or ignorance of political realities that challenge their thesis; (5) logical incoherence in examples provided to bolster their thesis; and (6) statements or claims that are politically tone deaf at best, and offensive at worst.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48327,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological Inquiry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological Inquiry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2023.2192645\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2023.2192645","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在他们的目标文章中,Baumeister和Bushman(BB;本期)描述了政治党派冲突和敌意的“文化动物”理论。关于这篇文章,我几乎没有什么正面的评价。我的批评集中在六个主要问题上:(1)忽视了挑战他们论文的相关科学证据;(2) 寻找矛盾的心理证据以符合他们的论点;(3) 他们的预测模型缺乏特异性;(4) 忽视或忽视挑战其论点的政治现实;(5) 为支持他们的论点而提供的例子中的逻辑不连贯;以及(6)往好里说是政治上充耳不闻,往坏里说是冒犯性的言论或主张。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Baumeister and Bushman’s Conflicted Theory of Political Conflict
In their target article, Baumeister and Bushman (BB; this issue) describe a “cultural animal” theory of political partisan conflict and hostility. There is little positive I can say about this article. My critique focuses on six primary problems: (1) ignoring relevant scientific evidence that challenges their thesis; (2) shoe-horning contradictory psychological evidence to fit their thesis; (3) lack of specificity in their predictive model; (4) ignoring or ignorance of political realities that challenge their thesis; (5) logical incoherence in examples provided to bolster their thesis; and (6) statements or claims that are politically tone deaf at best, and offensive at worst.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological Inquiry
Psychological Inquiry PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
1.10%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: Psychological Inquiry serves as an international journal dedicated to the advancement of psychological theory. Each edition features an extensive target article exploring a controversial or provocative topic, accompanied by peer commentaries and a response from the target author(s). Proposals for target articles must be submitted using the Target Article Proposal Form, and only approved proposals undergo peer review by at least three reviewers. Authors are invited to submit their full articles after the proposal has received approval from the Editor.
期刊最新文献
How Prevalent is Social Projection? The Future of Social Perception Models: Further Directions for Theoretical Development of the Inductive Reasoning Model Social Projection and Cognitive Differentiation Co-Explain Self-Enhancement and in-Group Favoritism Three Pokes into the Comfort Zone of the Inductive Reasoning Model Inductive Reasoning Renewed: A Reply to Commentators
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1