Theory...according to Psychology

greenspun.com : LUSENET : History & Theory of Psychology : One Thread

I am currently doing paper answering the question.."In psychology, define theory". There are several different ways that I could approach the issue, but I thought that I would write and ask you what you believe the "pat" answer to this question would be...I have been looking more toward how the theories of psychology are different than those in physics or other science...what do you think?

-- Heather Hodges (heathhdgs@aol.com), September 22, 2001

Answers

A very complicated question to answer in a "pat" way. For one influential view, you might have a look at: Andre Kukla's article, "Nonempirical issues in psychology" (American Psychologist. 1989 May Vol 44(5) 785-794), which can be found on-line at http://spider.apa.org:80/ftdocs/amp/1989/may/amp445785.html if you have access.

For another view, have a look at: Brent Slife & Richard Williams' "Toward a theoretical psychology: Should a subdiscipline be formally recognized?" (American Psychologist. 1997 Feb Vol 52(2) 117-129), which can be found on-line at http://spider.apa.org:80/ftdocs/amp/1997/february/amp522117.html if you have access.

-- Christopher Green (christo@yorku.ca), September 22, 2001.


I recommend Joseph Rychlak, A Philosophy of Science for Personality Theory, Houghton-Mifflin, 1968. This is a 'classic' in the field.

-- Hendrika Vande Kemp (hendrika@earthlink.net), September 24, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ