The Practice of Psychological Science: Searching for Cronbach's Two Streams in Social-Personality Psychology

Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Impact Factor: 5.08). 07/2009; 96(6):1206-25. DOI: 10.1037/a0015173
Source: PubMed


The present research surveyed a group of editors and editorial board members of personality and social psychology journals to examine the practice of psychological science in their field. Findings demonstrate that (a) although personality and social researchers tend to use many of the same approaches, methods, and procedures, they nonetheless show average differences in each of these domains, as well as in their overarching theoretical aims and perspectives; (b) these average differences largely conform to social and personality researchers' stereotypes about each subgroup; (c) despite their methodological and philosophical differences, the 2 subgroups study many of the same research topics; and (d) the structure of social-personality research practices can be characterized as having 2 independent factors, which closely correspond to L. J. Cronbach's (1957) correlational and experimental "streams of research."

Download full-text


Available from: Richard Robins,
  • Source
    • "Despite the heavy attention to faces in past experimental studies of mind and brain, we still know relatively little about individual differences in face processing. This imbalance illustrates a classic and persisting hurdle in psychology: the difficulty of translating insights gleaned from experiments into an understanding of naturally occurring differences (Cronbach, 1957; Tracy, Robins, & Sherman, 2009). We believe that predominantly experimental fields, such as cognitive neuroscience, vision science, and experimental psychology, have much to offer the study of human variation. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Proper characterization of each individual's unique pattern of strengths and weaknesses requires good measures of diverse abilities. Here, we advocate combining our growing understanding of neural and cognitive mechanisms with modern psychometric methods in a renewed effort to capture human individuality through a consideration of specific abilities. We articulate five criteria for the isolation and measurement of specific abilities, then apply these criteria to face recognition. We cleanly dissociate face recognition from more general visual and verbal recognition. This dissociation stretches across ability as well as disability, suggesting that specific developmental face recognition deficits are a special case of a broader specificity that spans the entire spectrum of human face recognition performance. Item-by-item results from 1,471 web-tested participants, included as supplementary information, fuel item analyses, validation, norming, and item response theory (IRT) analyses of our three tests: (a) the widely used Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT); (b) an Abstract Art Memory Test (AAMT), and (c) a Verbal Paired-Associates Memory Test (VPMT). The availability of this data set provides a solid foundation for interpreting future scores on these tests. We argue that the allied fields of experimental psychology, cognitive neuroscience, and vision science could fuel the discovery of additional specific abilities to add to face recognition, thereby providing new perspectives on human individuality.
    Cognitive Neuropsychology 07/2012; 29(5-6):360-92. DOI:10.1080/02643294.2012.753433 · 2.07 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "In his re-assessment 18 years later, optimism had given way to skepticism, in light of little evidence of any significant progress. He thought that the best one can hope for is that the two disciplines delineate largely independent territories within which both of them appear to do quite well – a view recently re-evaluated with a slightly more optimistic outlook for the fields of social (i.e., experimental) and personality (i.e., correlational) psychology (Tracy et al., 2009). Here we propose that linear mixed models (LMMs) offer a new hope for a productive convergence between the two streams of research. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Linear mixed models (LMMs) provide a still underused methodological perspective on combining experimental and individual-differences research. Here we illustrate this approach with two-rectangle cueing in visual attention (Egly et al., 1994). We replicated previous experimental cue-validity effects relating to a spatial shift of attention within an object (spatial effect), to attention switch between objects (object effect), and to the attraction of attention toward the display centroid (attraction effect), also taking into account the design-inherent imbalance of valid and other trials. We simultaneously estimated variance/covariance components of subject-related random effects for these spatial, object, and attraction effects in addition to their mean reaction times (RTs). The spatial effect showed a strong positive correlation with mean RT and a strong negative correlation with the attraction effect. The analysis of individual differences suggests that slow subjects engage attention more strongly at the cued location than fast subjects. We compare this joint LMM analysis of experimental effects and associated subject-related variances and correlations with two frequently used alternative statistical procedures.
    Frontiers in Psychology 01/2011; 1:228. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00238 · 2.80 Impact Factor
  • Source

    Journal of Research in Personality 04/2009; 43(2):272-273. DOI:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.020 · 2.00 Impact Factor
Show more