Abstract
In the initial argument for generative theory an antiempiricist gauntlet was thrown in the hope that a confrontation with fundamental assumptions in social psychology might ensue. Yet, the Shaeffer, Francis, and Ruback critique fails to confront the central arguments raised by the initial paper. Its avoidance of the critical issues suggests that the long standing empiricist assumptions currently function in social psychology as talismans. So long as these assumptions remain unexamined they fend against the rising specter of doubt.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
