This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cooper, J. Articles by Fazio, R. H. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Cooper, J. Articles by Fazio, R. H. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Research Traditions, Analysis, and Synthesis

Building a Faulty Case Around Misinterpreted Theory

Princeton University

Russell H. Fazio

Indiana University

Berkowitz and Devine's examination of research traditions in social psychology and their consideration of dissonance theory are questioned. In contrast to their position, the present authors doubt that the research enterprise can be neatly divided into analytic versus synthetic strategies. Furthermore, the authors question Berkowitz and Devine's portrayal of contemporary social psychology as too heavily analytic and too lightly synthetic. Nor do the auth ors see synthesis as at all incompatible with the field's present cognitive orientation. Last, and most important, is a discussion of the various manners in which Berkowitz and Devine have misinterpreted the authors' reformulation of dissonance processes. The breadth and synthetic value of the reformulation are discussed as an illustration of the synergistic relation between analytic and synthetic efforts.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. B. Fried and E. Aronson Hypocrisy, Misattribution, and Dissonance Reduction Pers Soc Psychol Bull, September 1, 1995; 21(9): 925 - 933. [Abstract]