Three hundred six psychologists, all members of the American Psychological Association, responded to a questionnaire on which they rated various theoretical–philosophical statements concerning the conduct of psychological inquiry. Results were considered in relation to the subdiscipline of psychology to which respondents belonged, their gender, and their decade of birth. Results for subdiscipline indicated progressively weaker relative support for naturalism, reductionism, empiricism, and experimentalism as the context of subdisciplinary inquiry became increasingly broad. Women were less attached to experimental methods than men and displayed a stronger belief in the importance of political factors in research than did their male counterparts. Finally, younger psychologists believed more strongly in the importance of presentation skills such as good writing and rhetoric with respect to research and academic success.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllportG. W. (1955). Becoming: Basic considerations for a psychology of personality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
2.
American Psychological Association. (1999). 1999 APA membership registry. Washington, DC: Author.
3.
AnsbacherH. L. (1961). On the origin of holism. Journal of Individual Psychology, 17, 142–148.
4.
BaronJ., & SiepmannM. (2000). Techniques for creating and using Web questionnaires in research and teaching. In BirnbaumM. H., Psychological experiments on the Internet (pp. 235–265). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
5.
BrunswikE. (1952). The conceptual framework of psychology. In International encyclopedia of unified science (Vol. 1; pp. 1–11). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
CattellR. B., & DrevdahlJ. E. (1955). A comparison of the personality profile (16PF) of eminent researchers with that of eminent teachers and administrators, and the general population. British Journal of Psychology, 46, 248–261.
7.
CoanR. W. (1968). Dimensions of psychological theory. American Psychologist, 23, 715–722.
8.
CohenD. (1977). Psychologists on psychology: Modern innovators talk about their work. New York: Taplinger.
9.
CohenD. (1995). Psychologists on psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
10.
DanzigerK. (1990). Constructing the subject: Historical origins of psychological research. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
11.
DanzigerK. (1997). Naming the mind: New psychology found its language. London: Sage.
12.
EvansR. B. (1976). The making of psychology: Discussions with creative contributors. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
13.
FeistG. J., & GormanM. E. (1998). The psychology of science: Review and integration of a nascent discipline. Review of General Psychology, 2, 3–47.
14.
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.
15.
HudsonL. (1972). The cult of the fact. London: Cape.
KieslerS., & SproullL. S. (1986). Response effects in the electronic survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 402–413.
18.
KimbleG. A. (1984). Psychology's two cultures. American Psychologist, 39, 833–839.
19.
KochS. (1981). The nature and limits of psychological knowledge: Lessons of a century qua “science.”American Psychologist, 36, 257–269.
20.
KochS. (1992). Psychology's Bridgman vs. Bridgman's Bridgman: An essay in reconstruction. Theory and Psychology, 2, 261–290.
21.
MartinJ., & DawdaD. (2000). Reductionism in the autobiographical accounts of prominent psychologists. Manuscript submitted for publication.
22.
MaslowA. (1966). The psychology of science. New York: Harper & Row.
23.
MehtaR., & SivadasE. (1995). Comparing response rate and response content in mail versus electronic mail surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society, 37, 429–439.
24.
MitroffI. I. (1979). Eminent psychologists and selenologists: A comparative study of their images of science. In BussA. R., Psychology in social context (pp. 307–328). New York: Irvington.
25.
MurrayH. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.
26.
RobinsonD. N. (1985). Psychology of psychology. New York: Columbia University Press.
RoeA. (1953). A psychological study of eminent psychologists and anthropologists, and a comparison with biological and physical scientists. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 67, 1–55.
29.
RogersC. R. (1961). Two divergent trends. In MayR., Existential psychology (pp. 183–200). New York: Random House.
30.
SimontonD. K. (1985). Quality, quantity, and age: The careers of 10 distinguished psychologists. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 21, 241–254.
31.
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.
32.
SimontonD. K. (2000). Methodological and theoretical orientation and the long-term impact of 54 eminent psychologists. Review of General Psychology, 4, 13–24.
33.
StevensS. S. (1939). Psychology and the science of science. Psychological Bulletin, 36, 221–263.
34.
SuedfeldP. (1985). APA presidential addresses: The relation of integrative complexity to historical, professional, and personal factors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1643–1651.
35.
WatsonR. A. (1967). Psychology: A prescriptive science. American Psychologist, 22, 435–443.
