The long-term influence of 54 highly eminent psychologists was hypothesized to be a function of their methodological and theoretical orientation. Individual differences in impact were gauged via the Social Sciences Citation Index for 1976–1980 and 1986–1990. Orientation was assessed along 6 dimensions: objectivistic versus subjectivistic, quantitative versus qualitative, elementaristic versus holistic, impersonal versus personal, static versus dynamic, and exogenist versus endogenist (R. W. Coan, 1979). Correlation and regression analyses revealed that long-term influence could be predicted by both method and theory measures. Especially significant was the curvilinear backward-J curve between total citations and a general factor defined by all 6 bipolar dimensions. The most influential psychologists tend to take extreme positions on the controversies that have characterized the history of psychology.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbertR. S. (1975). Toward a behavioral definition of genius. American Psychologist, 30, 140–151.
2.
BachtoldL. M., & WernerE. E. (1970). Personality profiles of gifted women: Psychologists. American Psychologist, 25, 234–243.
3.
BarnettG. A., FinkE. L., & DebusM. B. (1989). A mathematical model of academic citation age. Communication Research, 16, 510–531.
4.
BoringM. D., & BoringE. G. (1948). Masters and pupils among the American psychologists. American Journal of Psychology, 61, 527–534.
5.
BrunerJ. S., & AllportG. W. (1940). Fifty years of change in American psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 37, 757–776.
6.
BuffardiL. C., & NicholsJ. A. (1981). Citation impact, acceptance rate, and APA journals. American Psychologist, 36, 1453–1456.
7.
CampbellD. P. (1965). The vocational interests of American Psychological Association presidents. American Psychologist, 20, 636–644.
8.
CattellR. B., & ButcherH. J. (1968). The prediction of achievement and creativity. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
9.
CattellR. B., & DrevdahlJ. E. (1955). A comparison of the personality profile (16 P. F.) of eminent researchers with that of eminent teachers and administrators, and of the general population. British Journal of Psychology, 46, 248–261.
10.
ChambersJ. A. (1964). Relating personality and biographical factors to scientific creativity. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 78 (7, Whole No. 584).
11.
ClarkK. E. (1957). America's psychologists: A survey of a growing profession. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
12.
CoanR. W. (1968). Dimensions of psychological theory. American Psychologist, 23, 715–722.
13.
CoanR. W. (1973). Toward a psychological interpretation of psychology. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 9, 313–327.
14.
CoanR. W. (1979). Psychologists: Personal and theoretical pathways. New York: Irvington.
15.
CoanR. W., & ZagonaS. V. (1962). Contemporary ratings of psychological theorists. Psychological Record, 12, 315–322.
16.
ColeS. (1983). The hierarchy of the sciences?American Journal of Sociology, 89, 111–139.
17.
ColeS., & ColeJ. R. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18.
ConwayJ. B. (1988). Differences among clinical psychologists: Scientists, practitioners, and scientist-practitioners. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19, 642–655.
19.
DarlingtonR. B. (1990). Regression and linear models. New York: McGraw-Hill.
20.
DennisW. (1954). Productivity among American psychologists. American Psychologist, 9, 191–194.
21.
EndlerN. S., RushtonJ. P., & RoedigerH. L.III. (1978). Productivity and scholarly impact (citations) of British, Canadian, and U.S. departments of psychology (1975). American Psychologist, 33, 1064–1082.
22.
EysenckH. J. (1995). Genius: The natural history of creativity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
23.
GaltonF. (1874). English men of science: Their nature and nurture. London: Macmillan.
24.
GillispieC. C. (1960). The edge of objectivity: An essay in the history of scientific ideas. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
GoodmanE. S. (1971). Citation analysis as a tool in historical study: A case study based on F. C. Donders and mental reaction times. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 7, 187–191.
26.
GottfredsonS. D. (1978). Evaluating psychological research reports: Dimensions, reliability, and correlates of quality judgments. American Psychologist, 33, 920–934.
27.
HelmreichR. L., SpenceJ. T., BeaneW. E., LuckerG. W., & MatthewsK. A. (1980). Making it in academic psychology: Demographic and personality correlates of attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 896–908.
28.
HoweM. J. A., DavidsonJ. W., & SlobodaJ. A. (1998). Innate talents: Reality or myth?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 399–442.
29.
Institute for Scientific Information. (1983). Social Sciences Citation Index five-year cumulation 1976–1980. Philadelphia: Author.
30.
Institute for Scientific Information. (1992). Social Sciences Citation Index five-year cumulation 1986–1990. Philadelphia: Author.
31.
JohnsonJ. A., GermerC. K., EfranJ. S., & OvertonW. F. (1988). Personality as the basis for theoretical predilections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 824–835.
32.
KammannR. (1966). Verbal complexity and preferences in poetry. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 536–540.
33.
KimbleG. A. (1984). Psychology's two cultures. American Psychologist, 39, 833–839.
34.
LindseyD. (1988). Assessing precision in the manuscript review process: A little better than a dice roll. Scientometrics, 14, 75–82.
35.
LoehleC. (1990). A guide to increased creativity in research—Inspiration or perspiration?BioScience, 40, 123–129.
36.
LyonsJ. (1968). Chronological age, professional age, and eminence in psychology. American Psychologist, 23, 371–374.
37.
MacRaeD.Jr. (1969). Growth and decay curves in scientific citations. American Sociological Review, 34, 631–635.
38.
MartindaleC. (1990). The clockwork muse: The predictability of artistic styles. New York: Basic Books.
39.
MyersC. R. (1970). Journal citations and scientific eminence in contemporary psychology. American Psychologist, 25, 1041–1048.
40.
OverR. (1982). The durability of scientific reputation. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 18, 53–61.
41.
RoeA. (1953). A psychological study of eminent psychologists and anthropologists, and a comparison with biological and physical scientists. Psychological Monographs, 67(2, Whole No. 352).
42.
RushtonJ. P. (1984). Evaluating research eminence in psychology: The construct validity of citation counts. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 37, 33–36.
43.
ScottW. A. (1974). Interreferee agreement on some characteristics of manuscripts submitted to theJournal of Personality and Social Psychology. American Psychologist, 29, 698–702.
44.
ShadishW. R.Jr. (1989). The perception and evaluation of quality in science. In GholsonB., ShadishW. R.Jr., NeimeyerR. A., & HoutsA. C., The psychology of science: Contributions to metascience (pp. 383–426). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
45.
SimontonD. K. (1976). Philosophical eminence, beliefs, and zeitgeist: An individual-generational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 630–640.
46.
SimontonD. K. (1977). Eminence, creativity, and geographic marginality: A recursive structural equation model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 805–816.
47.
SimontonD. K. (1980). Thematic fame, melodic originality, and musical zeitgeist: A biographical and transhistorical content analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 972–983.
48.
SimontonD. K. (1984a). Leaders as eponyms: Individual and situational determinants of monarchal eminence. Journal of Personality, 52, 1–21.
49.
SimontonD. K. (1984b). Scientific eminence historical and contemporary: A measurement assessment. Scientometrics, 6, 169–182.
50.
SimontonD. K. (1985). Quality, quantity, and age: The careers of 10 distinguished psychologists. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 21, 241–254.
51.
SimontonD. K. (1987). Why presidents succeed: A political psychology of leadership. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
52.
SimontonD. K. (1990). Psychology, science, and history: An introduction to historiometry. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
53.
SimontonD. K. (1991). Career landmarks in science: Individual differences and interdisciplinary contrasts. Developmental Psychology, 27, 119–130.
54.
SimontonD. K. (1992). Leaders of American psychology, 1879–1967: Career development, creative output, and professional achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 5–17.
55.
SimontonD. K. (1993). Putting the best leaders in the White House: Personality, policy, and performance. Political Psychology, 14, 537–548.
56.
SimontonD. K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, 104, 66–89.
57.
SimontonD. K. (1999). Talent and its development: An emergenic and epigenetic model. Psychological Review, 106, 435–457.
58.
SnowC. P. (1960). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. New York: Cambridge University Press.
59.
SternbergR. J., & GordeevaT. (1996). The anatomy of impact: What makes an article influential?Psychological Science, 7, 69–75.
60.
SternbergR. J., & LubartT. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.
61.
TerryW. S. (1989). Birth order and prominence in the history of psychology. Psychological Record, 39, 333–337.
62.
VitzP. C. (1964). Preferences for rates of information presented by sequences of tones. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 176–183.
63.
WatsonR. I. (1967). Psychology: A prescriptive science. American Psychologist, 22, 435–443.
64.
WatsonR. I. (1974). Eminent contributors to psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Springer.
65.
WinterD. G. (1987). Leader appeal, leader performance, and the motive profiles of leaders and followers: A study of American presidents and elections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 196–202.
66.
WispéL. G. (1963). Traits of eminent American psychologists. Science, 141, 1256–1261.
67.
WispéL. G. (1965). Some social and psychological correlates of eminence in psychology. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 7, 88–98.
68.
WispéL. G., & RitterJ. H. (1964). Where America's recognized psychologists received their doctorates. American Psychologist, 19, 634–644.
69.
WolffW. M. (1973). Publication problems in psychology and an explicit evaluation schema for manuscripts. American Psychologist, 28, 257–261.
70.
ZacharP., & LeongF. T. L. (1992). A problem of personality: Scientist and practitioner differences in psychology. Journal of Personality, 60, 665–677.
71.
ZusneL., & DaileyD. P. (1982). History of psychology texts as measuring instruments of eminence in psychology. Revista de Historia de la Psicología, 3, 7–42.
