« About a Questionable Criticism: Some Precision on the Current Theory of the Norm of Internality »: Reply to Beauvois and Dubois (2009)
Delmas, Florian
« About a Questionable Criticism: Some Precision on the Current Theory of the Norm of Internality »: Reply to Beauvois and Dubois (2009) - 2011.
11
In a paper published in International Review of Social Psychology, we criticized a methodological practice applied to study the norm of internality, that is generalizing results from internality questionnaires for which it does not exist any proof of validity (Delmas, 2009). We have supposed that the higher value of internal explanations compared to external ones is a specific property of the internality questionnaires. We hypothesized this property would result from a bias in explanations selection; therefore, it cannot be generalized. In a comment published in this journal, Beauvois and Dubois (2009) rejected our critic, not by providing evidences of internality questionnaires validity, but by challenging grounds and experimental method of our research. Here, we refute their arguments one by one. Unexpectedly, some of them accredit instead of disproving our own criticism. Consequently, we maintain our assumption of a methodological bias in internality questionnaires.
« About a Questionable Criticism: Some Precision on the Current Theory of the Norm of Internality »: Reply to Beauvois and Dubois (2009) - 2011.
11
In a paper published in International Review of Social Psychology, we criticized a methodological practice applied to study the norm of internality, that is generalizing results from internality questionnaires for which it does not exist any proof of validity (Delmas, 2009). We have supposed that the higher value of internal explanations compared to external ones is a specific property of the internality questionnaires. We hypothesized this property would result from a bias in explanations selection; therefore, it cannot be generalized. In a comment published in this journal, Beauvois and Dubois (2009) rejected our critic, not by providing evidences of internality questionnaires validity, but by challenging grounds and experimental method of our research. Here, we refute their arguments one by one. Unexpectedly, some of them accredit instead of disproving our own criticism. Consequently, we maintain our assumption of a methodological bias in internality questionnaires.
Réseaux sociaux