A Response on Concepts, Laws and Measurement in Social Psychology

Abstract

While appreciating Kimble's (2001) praise of our paper (Wallach & Wallach, 2001), we argue against his reduction of mental states to behavioral dispositions. Crandall and Schaller (2001) make five points in criticism of our argument that much research in social psychology is plagued by circularity. We show that their first point is based on a misunderstanding, that their third point is irrelevant, and that their last two points do not attempt to answer our argument. This leaves their second point as Crandall and Schaller's only actual counterargument—namely that confidence in a measure for a construct is independent of confidence in the construct's relationships to other constructs. We show this claim of independence to be false.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 4 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.