Abstract
Among the various subfields of psychology, Personality is just about unique in its continued dedication to the teaching of courses and thus to the writing of textbooks devoted to “theory.” Where else, save perhaps in the closely allied field of Abnormal Psychology, can one find comparable courses and texts? Surely not in Cognitive or Biological Psychology, for example, and only with difficulty in Social Psychology. The contrast between the fates of Hilgard’s (1948) classic Theories of Learning and Hall and Lindzey’s (1957) comparably classic Theories of Personality is telling in this regard. The former, whose last edition was written a decade ago, can scarcely be considered representative of the current generation of textbooks in learning while the latter, in its most recent incarnation (Hall et al., 1985) (and with two additional authors), remains a leading textbook in the field. In what follows, I will be less concerned with the question of why this state of affairs exists than with the question of whether it is a desirable state of affairs. It should come as no surprise after so tendentious an opening that I intend to argue that the continued emphasis on theories of personality is not desirable, that it is both anachronistic and a misleading representation of what, in fact, personality psychologists think about and do.
Keywords
- Canonical Theorist
- Heuristic Function
- Personality Theory
- Personality Psychologist
- Personal Construct Theory
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Alpert-Gillis, L. J., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Gender and sex-role influence on children’s self-esteem. Journal of Personality, 57, 97–114.
Barzun, J. (1958). Darwin, Marx, Wagner.: Critique of a heritage. New York.
Doubleday. Brown, P. (1967). Augustine of Hippo. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hall, C. S., & Lindzey, G. (1957). Theories of personality. New York: Wiley.
Hall, C. S., Lindzey, G., Loehlin, J. C., & Manosevitz, M. (1985). Introduction to theories of personality. New York: Wiley.
Hilgard, J. (1948). Theories of learning. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Levy, L. H. (1970). Conceptions of personality. New York: Random House.
Maddi, S. R. (1984). Personology for the 1980s. In J. Aronoff, R.A. Zucker, & A. I. Rabin (Eds.), Personality and the prediction of behavior (pp. 7–41 ). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Maddi, S. R. (1989). Personality theories: A comparative analysis ( 5th ed. ). Chicago: Dorsey Press.
Mendelsohn, G. A. (1983). What should we tell students about theories of personality? Contemporary Psychology, 28, 435–1137.
Moskowitz, D. S., & Schwartzman, A. E. (1989). Painting group portraits: Studying life outcomes for aggressive and withdrawn children. Journal of Personality, 57, 723–746.
Simonton, D. K. (1989). Shakespeare’s sonnets: A case of and for single-case histori ometry. Journal of Personality, 57, 695–721.
Stagner, R. (1974). Psychology of personality ( 4th ed. ). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1993 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mendelsohn, G.A. (1993). It’s Time to Put Theories of Personality in Their Place, or, Allport and Stagner Got It Right, Why Can’t We?. In: Craik, K.H., Hogan, R., Wolfe, R.N. (eds) Fifty Years of Personality Psychology. Perspectives on Individual Differences. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2311-0_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2311-0_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4899-2313-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-2311-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive