Bibliography for Social Psychology Theory and Methods BETA

1

McGarty C, Haslam SA. The message of social psychology: perspectives on mind in society. Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell Publishers 1997.

2

Dunn D. Research methods for social psychology. Second edition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley 2013.

3

Breakwell GM, Breakwell GM. Doing social psychology research. Malden, Mass: Blackwell 2004.

4

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY THEORY.

5

Goethals G. A Century of Social Psychology: Individuals, Ideas, and Investigations. In: Hogg M, Cooper JM, eds. The SAGE Handbook of Social Psychology: Concise Student Edition. London: SAGE Publications Ltd 2007:3–23.

6

D.M. M, E.R. S. Intergroup Emotions. Published Online First: 2014.

7

P.G. D. Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Published Online First: 1989.

8

Seger CR, Smith ER, Mackie DM. Subtle activation of a social categorization triggers group-level emotions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2009;45:460–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.12.004

9

Schmid K, Hewstone M, Küpper B, et al. Secondary Transfer Effects of Intergroup Contact. Social Psychology Quarterly. 2012;75:28–51. doi: 10.1177/0190272511430235

10

Turner R, West K. Imagining intergroup contact reduces implicit prejudice. British Journal of Social Psychology. Published Online First: 2010.

11

Barlow, FKPaolini, SPedersen, AHornsey, MJRadke, HRMHarwood, JRubin, MSibley, CG. The Contact Caveat: Negative Contact Predicts Increased Prejudice More Than Positive Contact Predicts Reduced Prejudice. PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN. Published Online First: 2012.

12

Nelson TD. Ageism: stereotyping and prejudice against older persons. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press 2002.

13

Abrams, William Dominic JoshuaSwift, Hannah J.Lamont, Ruth A.Abrams, Dominic. BMJ OPEN. Published Online First: 2012.

14

Swift, Hannah J.. Centre for the Study of Group Processes, University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom, H.J.Swift@kent.ac.uk Abrams, Dominic. Centre for the Study of Group Processes, University of Kent, Canterbury, United KingdomLamont, Ruth A.. Centre for Research in Ageing and Cognitive Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, EnglandDrury, Lisbeth. University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom. Social Issues and Policy Review. 2017;11:195–231.

15

Engel C. Dictator games: a meta study. Experimental Economics. 2011;14:583–610. doi: 10.1007/s10683-011-9283-7

16

Yamagishi, TLi, YTakagishi, HMatsumoto, YKiyonari, T. In Search of Homo economicus. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE. Published Online First: 2014.

17

Fleming P, Zizzo DJ. A simple stress test of experimenter demand effects. Theory and Decision. 2015;78:219–31. doi: 10.1007/s11238-014-9419-2

18

Conner M, Armitage CJ. Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior: A Review and Avenues for Further Research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1998;28:1429–64. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01685.x

19

Armitage CJ; Centre for Research in Social Attitudes, Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield S10 2TP, UK.Conner M. Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: a meta-analytic review. The British Journal Of Social Psychology. 2001;40.

20

Martine, SteadStephen, TaggAnne Marie, MacKintoshDouglas, Eadie. Development and evaluation of a mass media Theory of Planned Behaviour intervention to reduce speeding. Health Education Research. 2005;20:36–50.

21

Gan M, Chen S. Being Your Actual or Ideal Self? What It Means to Feel Authentic in a Relationship. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2017;43:465–78. doi: 10.1177/0146167216688211

22

Cacioppo S, Zhou H, Monteleone G, et al. You are in sync with me: Neural correlates of interpersonal synchrony with a partner. Neuroscience. 2014;277:842–58. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2014.07.051

23

Hofman W, Finkel E, Fitzsimons G. Close Relationships and Self-Regulation: How Relationship Satisfaction Faci... JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY. Published Online First: 2015.

24

Abrahamse W, Steg L, Vlek C, et al. A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2005;25:273–91. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.08.002

25

Steg L, Vlek C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2009;29:309–17. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004

26

Truelove, HBCarrico, ARWeber, EURaimi, KTVandenbergh, MP. Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and theoretical framework. GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE-HUMAN AND POLICY DIMENSIONS. Published Online First: 2014.

27

Ederyn, Williams. Experimental comparisons of face-to-face and mediated communication: A review. Psychological Bulletin. 1977;84:963–76.

28

Parks MR, Floyd K. Making Friends in Cyberspace. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2006;1. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.1996.tb00176.x

29

Costa Pinto D, Reale G, Segabinazzi R, et al. Online identity construction: How gamers redefine their identity in experiential communities. Journal of Consumer Behaviour. 2015;14:399–409. doi: 10.1002/cb.1556

30

Kenneth J., Gergen. Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1973;26:309–20.

31

Parker, Ian. Division of Psychology and Social Change, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom, i.a.parker@mmu.ac.uk. Critical psychology: What it is and what it is not. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2007;1:1–15.

32

Clarke V. Men Not Included? Journal of GLBT Family Studies. 2007;3:309–49. doi: 10.1300/J461v03n04_01

33

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY METHODS.

34

Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U. False-Positive Psychology. Psychological Science. 2011;22:1359–66. doi: 10.1177/0956797611417632

35

Yong E. Replication studies: Bad copy. Nature. 2012;485:298–300. doi: 10.1038/485298a

36

S.T. F. Mob Rule or Wisdom of Crowds?

37

King M, Gordon B. Social Desirability Bias: A Neglected Aspect of Validity Testing. Psychology & Marketing. Published Online First: 2000.

38

Norman G. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the ‘laws’ of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education. Published Online First: 2010.

39

Allen E, Seaman C. Statistics Roundtable: Likert Scales and Data Analyses. http://asq.org/quality-progress/2007/07/statistics/likert-scales-and-data-analyses.html

40

Janice, RattrayMartyn C, Jones. Essential elements of questionnaire design and development. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2007;16:234–43.

41

Greenwald AG, Poehlman TA, Uhlmann EL, et al. Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2009;97:17–41. doi: 10.1037/a0015575

42

Kevin A, FentonAnne M, JohnsonSally, McManusBob, Erens. Measuring sexual behaviour: methodological challenges in survey research. Sexually Transmitted Infections. 2001;77:01–92.

43

Bryman A. Social research methods. Fifth edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press 2016.

44

Brinkmann S, Kvale S. InterViews: learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Third edition. Los Angeles: SAGE 2015.

45

Richards L, Morse JM. Readme first for a user’s guide to qualitative methods. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage 2013.

46

Mason J. Qualitative researching. 2nd ed. London: SAGE 2002.

47

King N, Horrocks C, Brooks JM. Interviews in qualitative research. 2nd edition. Los Angeles: SAGE 2019.

48

Eaton S. Research Assistant Training Manual: Focus Groups.

49

Nicholas A, Maner J. The Good-Subject Effect: Investigating Participant Demand Characteristics. Journal of General Psychology. Published Online First: 2008.

50

Millsap RE, Maydeu-Olivares A. The SAGE handbook of quantitative methods in psychology. Los Angeles, [Calif.]: SAGE 2009.

51

Durgin FH, Baird JA, Greenburg M, et al. Who is being deceived? The experimental demands of wearing a backpack. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2009;16:964–9. doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.5.964

52

Coe R. What effect size is and why it is important?

53

Ryan RS, Wilde M, Crist S. Compared to a small, supervised lab experiment, a large, unsupervised web-based experiment on a previously unknown effect has benefits that outweigh its potential costs. Computers in Human Behavior. 2013;29:1295–301. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.024

54

Gary L. Brase. How different types of participant payments alter task performance. Judgment and Decision Making,. 2009;419–28.

55

Anderson C, Lindsay J, Bushman B. Research in the Psychological Laboratory: Truth or Triviality? Current Directions in Psychological Science. Published Online First: 1999.

56

Mitchell G. Revisiting Truth or Triviality. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2012;7:109–17. doi: 10.1177/1745691611432343

57

Schmuckler M. What Is Ecological Validity? A Dimensional Analysis. Infancy. Published Online First: 2001.

58

Green DP, McGrath MC, Aronow PM. Field Experiments and the Study of Voter Turnout. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties. 2013;23:27–48. doi: 10.1080/17457289.2012.728223

59

Desposato S. Ethical Challenges and Some Solutions for Field Experiments. http://www.desposato.org/ethicsfieldexperiments.pdf

60

Salovey, Peter. Field Experiments in Social Psychology: Message Framing and the Promotion of Health Protective Behaviors. American Behavioral Scientist. 2004;47:488–505.

61

Tsatsou P. Digital technologies in the research process: Lessons from the digital research community in the UK. Computers in Human Behavior. 2016;61:597–608. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.053

62

Dhiraj Murthy. Digital Ethnography: An Examination of the Use of New Technologies for Social Research. Digital Ethnography: An Examination of the Use of New Technologies for Social Research. ;42:837–55.

63

Ryan T, Walker R. Life story work: why, what, how and when. Sixth edition. London: CoramBAAF, Adoption & Fostering Academy 2016.

64

Podwalking: A framework for assimilating mobile methods into action research.