Cypryańska Marzena, Nezlek John B, Jaskółowska Aleksandra, Formanowicz Magdalena Maria
a SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities , Warsaw.
b College of William & Mary.
J Soc Psychol. 2017;157(2):148-151. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2017.1282851.
In his reply to our critique of research on self-humanizing, Haslam claims that we used a narrow definition of self-humanizing that ignored the evidence from the correlational research he and his colleagues have done. We disagree. First, we relied upon a definition of self-humanizing based upon comparative judgments that Haslam and colleagues have consistently used. Second, we were well aware of the correlational research he and his colleagues have done. We simply did not think, and do not think, these correlations verified the existence of self-humanizing as defined. In his reply, Haslam offered a new definition of self-humanizing that defines self-humanizing in terms of correlations between comparative judgments and ratings of how much traits reflect human nature. Although we believe this change represents some progress, numerous issues in the study of self-humanizing remain to be resolved. We offer some suggestions for future research on this important topic.
在对我们对自我人性化研究的批评的回应中，哈斯拉姆声称我们使用了对自我人性化的狭义定义，忽略了他和他的同事所做的相关研究的证据。我们不同意。首先，我们依据的是基于比较判断的自我人性化定义，这也是哈斯拉姆及其同事一直使用的定义。其次，我们很清楚他和他的同事所做的相关研究。我们只是过去不认为，现在也不认为，这些相关性证实了所定义的自我人性化的存在。在他的回应中，哈斯拉姆提出了一个自我人性化的新定义，该定义根据比较判断与特质在多大程度上反映人性的评分之间的相关性来定义自我人性化。尽管我们认为这一变化代表了一些进展，但自我人性化研究中的众多问题仍有待解决。我们为关于这一重要主题的未来研究提供了一些建议。
