446 BOOK REVIEWS

literature was she forced to the conclusion that biological factors were also important. One might ask what she was doing teaching university classes without a knowledge of the literature in the first place, but at least she deserves credit for admitting the error. Even so, it seems the book must have been partly written before the lesson was learned for on page 4 we find her dismissing the likelihood of genetic determinants of behaviour as “extremely remote”. Her dismissal of sociobiology @. 5) is naive. “Sociobiology provides neither an explanation of nor a justification for sex differences,” she says. This is nonsense. Sociobiology provides many explanations for sex differences (which may be right or wrong); it never seeks to provide justification.

GLENN WILSX

R. F. DILLON and R. R. SCHMECK: Individual Differences in Cognifion. Vol. I. Academic Press, New York and London (1983). xvi + 323 pp. S40.00.

R. F. DILLON: Individual Differences in Cognition. Vol. 2. Academic Press, New York and London (1985). xi + 267 pp. $43.50.

About 25 years ago the practice of experimental psychology in Western countries began to emphasize mentalistic properties of human thought which gradually became known as the “cognitive revolution”. Since that time cognitive psychology has permeated nearly every corner of psychology-from clinical psychology, to social psychology, to psycholinguistics, to comparative psychology-and few areas have been untainted with the paradigmatic attributes of this “new” science. This study of individual differences, vis-d-ois cognitive psychology, is yet another area that has succumbed to the seemingly inexorable onslaught of this strain of psychology. Rather than ask “Why?” we wonder “Why has it taken so long?’ as the study of individual differences and modern cognitive psychology seem to have so much in common.

The two-volume series in Indioidual Differences in Cognition edited by R. F. Dillon and R. R. Schmeck sets about filling a void in the psychological literature by collecting I7 papers by psychologists, many of whom are known for their work in the cognitive field. As with most collections, the treatment of the topic of individual differences in cognition is varied both in the skill with which the authors treat the topic and in subject matter. Thus, the reader who hopes to gain an overdrew of this topic may be confused and one must question the guidelines set forth by the editors. What structure was formulated in the preparation of these volumes? It is hard for this reviewer to find a unifying scheme in the papers and one suspects that the editors selected people who demonstrated expertise in one branch of cognitive psychology and asked them to report their ideas with the hope that out of the collection a model of individual differences and cognition would emerge. Other sections are written by people interested in the educational aspects of cognitive psychology, which further contributes to the unevenness of the volumes.

There are, however, among these 17 chapters some papers that seem to make serious contributions to an important topic. The lead chapter in Volume I is by John Carroll and proposes a means of studying individual differences in cognitive abilities with factor analysis. Chapters by Perfetti, Pelegrino and Goldman, and Brians consider individual differences in verbal processes, spatial reasoning and mathematical ability, respectively. In the second volume Ackerman and Schneider discuss individual differences and automatic processing and Cooper and Mumaw present an interesting paper on spatial aptitude. Levin and Pressley contribute a chapter on mnemonics. Other chapters are on hemispheric asymmetry, children’s preschool language performance, learning complex skills and learning strategies to “round out” the volume.

The study of individual differences and cognitive psychology is a legitimate enterprise and should be encouraged. There is, in these two volumes, an impressive attempt by some to develop such an alliance. The weakness of the collection is that some of the chapters are peripheral to the central topic and that the central topic is neither defined nor does it coalesce.

ROBERT L. Souo

J. C. TURNER: Rediscovering the Social Group. Basil Blackwell, Oxford (1987). xi + 239 pp,

Although there are a number of journals that combine the study of personality/individual differences and social psychology the two approaches have rather different perspectives. In fact over the years, with the progressive balkanization of psychology, even journals such as the Journal of Personality and Social Psychofogy now has three sections one of which is called Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes and another Personality Processes and Individual Differences. HOW much longer before this splits and personality theorists and social psychologists go their different ways?

It has been suggested (Armistead, 1974) that there are two different types of social psychology-psychological social psychology which originates from general psychology, applies experimental methods to the study of social behaviour and cognitions and is specifically concerned with personality and individual differences. On the other hand sociological social psychology which is more sociological in its origins and stresses contextual (historical, socio-political), rather than individual determinants of social behaviour.

Occasionally these two different approaches can be compared and contrasted when attempting to explain similar phenomena or processes. For instance the Eysenck and Wilson (1978) school tend to examine ideology, prejudice and social attitudes from ihe psychological social psychological perspective emphasising personality and individual differences in the develoument and manifestation of social attitudes. The opposite point of view is taken by the late Tajfel (1978) and his followers who come from the sociological social psychoidgy school and stress intergroup phenomena in the origin of attitudes and prejudice. Whereas the readers of this journal are more sympathetic to the former approach the authors of the book adhere to the latter perspective.

This book is written by one-of ihe best of the Bristol school of sociological social psychologists. Curiously four of the nine chapters are written by Turner’s acolytes though it is not described as an edited book. The core of the book is in

Chapters 2 and 3. Chapter 2, which has the same title as the book, makes three points: the social group is a necessary