Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Free Access - Register Here

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rychlakl, J. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Rychlakl, J. F.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 2, No. 3, 234-238 (1976)
DOI: 10.1177/014616727600200305

Reactions to the Reactions

Joseph F. Rychlakl

Purdue University

Reactions are directed to the comments of Mancuso (1976) and Sechrest (1976) on Rychlak's (1976) paper "Personality Theory: Its Nature, Past, Present and--Future?" The reactions are organ ized around six themes: (1) Rychlak's (1976) concern with frag mentation of data is mainly with the underlying mentality of re searchers which leads to such narrow busywork. (2) Rigorous re search is necessary, but our present mechanistic language does not allow us the needed theoretical freedom. (3) Sechrest (1976) is incorrect that psychology has tried and discarded "time worn" hu manistic conceptions. In truth, psychology never gave humanistic orientations a chance to develop conceptual roots. (4) The neces sity for an absolute distinction between method and theory is not merely a semantic problem; without such a distinction, method will dictate the type of theories which are possible, and the type of epistemology underlying such theories. (5) The clear distinction between method and theory can provide the basis for a viable empir ical humanism, and will in this way provide the competitive theo retical arena which Sechrest (1976) desires. (6) Rychlak (1976) did not propose his own version of a humanistic theory in that ar ticle, but has done so in a forthcoming volume. The theoretical approach is called logical learning theory.


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


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
J. F. Rychlakl
Reactions to the Reactions
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, January 1, 1976; 2(3): 234 - 238.
[Abstract] [PDF]