单因素谬误:群体间接触理论分析中缺失关键变量的含义

IF 7.2 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Social Issues and Policy Review Pub Date : 2017-01-01 DOI:10.1111/SIPR.12026
T. Pettigrew, M. Hewstone
{"title":"单因素谬误:群体间接触理论分析中缺失关键变量的含义","authors":"T. Pettigrew, M. Hewstone","doi":"10.1111/SIPR.12026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The single factor fallacy occurs when social scientists model their applied work largely around a single factor. The problem generally arises when either a highly relevant theory is ignored or when missing key variables distort the results. Examples of this fallacy are drawn from the expanding research literature on intergroup contact, where we discuss the implications of missing critical variables from the analysis (including segregation, effects of negative as well as positive contact, extended contact, and contact when the outgroup is in the majority). The policy issues involved include racially desegregated schools, minority protest, the impact of neighborhood diversity, and anti-immigration voting. Three suggestions for avoiding the fallacy are emphasized—the use of mediation–moderation analysis, longitudinal research, and multilevel analysis. We end by outlining five simple principles, based on our own experience in the United States and the United Kingdom, that may increase the impact of social scientists’ research on public policy.","PeriodicalId":47129,"journal":{"name":"Social Issues and Policy Review","volume":"11 1","pages":"8-37"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/SIPR.12026","citationCount":"74","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Single Factor Fallacy: Implications of Missing Critical Variables from an Analysis of Intergroup Contact Theory1\",\"authors\":\"T. Pettigrew, M. Hewstone\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/SIPR.12026\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The single factor fallacy occurs when social scientists model their applied work largely around a single factor. The problem generally arises when either a highly relevant theory is ignored or when missing key variables distort the results. Examples of this fallacy are drawn from the expanding research literature on intergroup contact, where we discuss the implications of missing critical variables from the analysis (including segregation, effects of negative as well as positive contact, extended contact, and contact when the outgroup is in the majority). The policy issues involved include racially desegregated schools, minority protest, the impact of neighborhood diversity, and anti-immigration voting. Three suggestions for avoiding the fallacy are emphasized—the use of mediation–moderation analysis, longitudinal research, and multilevel analysis. We end by outlining five simple principles, based on our own experience in the United States and the United Kingdom, that may increase the impact of social scientists’ research on public policy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47129,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Issues and Policy Review\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"8-37\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/SIPR.12026\",\"citationCount\":\"74\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Issues and Policy Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/SIPR.12026\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Issues and Policy Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/SIPR.12026","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 74

摘要

当社会科学家主要围绕单一因素对他们的应用工作进行建模时,就会出现单因素谬误。当高度相关的理论被忽略或缺少关键变量扭曲结果时,通常会出现问题。这种谬论的例子来自于越来越多的关于群体间接触的研究文献,在这些文献中,我们讨论了分析中缺少关键变量的含义(包括隔离,消极和积极接触的影响,扩展接触,以及当外群体占多数时的接触)。涉及的政策问题包括取消种族隔离的学校、少数民族抗议、社区多样性的影响以及反移民投票。强调了避免这一谬误的三个建议:使用中介-适度分析、纵向研究和多层次分析。最后,根据我们在美国和英国的经验,我们概述了五个简单的原则,这些原则可能会增加社会科学家研究对公共政策的影响。
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
The Single Factor Fallacy: Implications of Missing Critical Variables from an Analysis of Intergroup Contact Theory1
The single factor fallacy occurs when social scientists model their applied work largely around a single factor. The problem generally arises when either a highly relevant theory is ignored or when missing key variables distort the results. Examples of this fallacy are drawn from the expanding research literature on intergroup contact, where we discuss the implications of missing critical variables from the analysis (including segregation, effects of negative as well as positive contact, extended contact, and contact when the outgroup is in the majority). The policy issues involved include racially desegregated schools, minority protest, the impact of neighborhood diversity, and anti-immigration voting. Three suggestions for avoiding the fallacy are emphasized—the use of mediation–moderation analysis, longitudinal research, and multilevel analysis. We end by outlining five simple principles, based on our own experience in the United States and the United Kingdom, that may increase the impact of social scientists’ research on public policy.
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
CiteScore
22.20
自引率
1.10%
发文量
9
期刊介绍: The mission of Social Issues and Policy Review (SIPR) is to provide state of the art and timely theoretical and empirical reviews of topics and programs of research that are directly relevant to understanding and addressing social issues and public policy.Papers will be accessible and relevant to a broad audience and will normally be based on a program of research. Works in SIPR will represent perspectives directly relevant to the psychological study of social issues and public policy. Contributions are expected to be review papers that present a strong scholarly foundation and consider how research and theory can inform social issues and policy or articulate the implication of social issues and public policy for theory and research.
期刊最新文献
A human rights‐based approach to climates injustices at the local, national, and international levels: Program and policy recommendations The connections—and misconnections—between the public and politicians over climate policy: A social psychological perspective Omission as a modern form of bias against Native Peoples: Implications for policies and practices Psychological science and its societal mission during the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic: The Motivation Barometer as an evidence‐informed policy instrument in Belgium The role of suspect development practices in eyewitness identification accuracy and racial disparities in wrongful conviction
×
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