• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Psychological Bulletin >Investing in the Personality Vulnerability Research Program—Current Dividends and Future Growth: Rejoinder to Coyne, Thompson, and Whiffen (2004)
【24h】

Investing in the Personality Vulnerability Research Program—Current Dividends and Future Growth: Rejoinder to Coyne, Thompson, and Whiffen (2004)

机译：投资人格脆弱性研究计划-当前的股息和未来的增长：与Coyne，Thompson和Whiffen的往来（2004）

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The authors do not see any benefit to J. C. Coyne, R. Thompson, and V. Whiffen's (2004) proposal to draw sharp boundaries between psychodynamic vulnerability theories, research on the onset of syndromal depression, and research with vulnerable, nondepressed populations. These domains have been and remain mutually relevant. Coyne et al. did not bring forward new evidence concerning the 6 issues addressed by D. C. Zuroff, M. Mongrain, and D. A. Santor (2004); consequently, the authors stand by their conclusions. According to Lakatos (as cited in B. Gholson & P. Barker, 1985), scientists justifiably continue to invest in research programs as long as the programs remain progressive. The personality vulnerability program is theoretically and empirically progressive and merits continued investment. Nevertheless, the field would benefit if Coyne et al. articulated a systematic contextualist research program to compete with the personality research program.
机译：作者认为，J。C. Coyne，R。Thompson和V. Whiffen（2004）的建议在心理动力脆弱性理论，症状性抑郁症发作的研究以及对弱势，非抑郁人群的研究之间划清界线的建议没有任何益处。这些领域已经并且仍然相互关联。 Coyne等。没有提出有关D.C. Zuroff，M.Mongrain和D.A.Santor（2004）提出的6个问题的新证据；因此，作者坚持其结论。根据Lakatos（如B. Gholson和P. Barker于1985年所引用），只要研究计划保持进步，科学家就有理由继续投资研究计划。人格脆弱性计划在理论和经验上都是进步的，值得继续投资。然而，如果Coyne等人，该领域将受益。制定了系统的情境主义研究计划，以与人格研究计划竞争。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号