One of the major controversies in contemporary personality research-the struggle between advocates of "dispositional" vs. "situational" formulations-now seems to be resolved m mutual agreement that "mteractional" conceptual frameworks are required. While this detente is a heartening development, it offers no solution to a central, enduring question How do personality dispositions structure and modulate the individual's transactions with the field? Urgently needed are conceptual frameworks capable of guiding such mteractional mquiry, yet few promismg formulations can be found m contemporary work Paradoxically, the basic steps toward a "new" and viable personology may consist m redamung and testing a theoretical hentage neglected dunng the recent neo-behaviorist era, and in reinstating quahtative, categoncal constructs as tools of mquiry. Some coherent vision of the nature and organization of mtraindividual quahties and of the nature of person-situation interactions is required by the task at hand. One of the most promising and neglected approaches to this problem may be found in Jung's (1923) theory of psychological types This paper reports a set of studies testing derivations from Jungian type theory, and addresses two basic questions: (1) Is Jungian theory capable of provldmg novel and testable insights into person-situation relationships? (2) Can theoretically-guided research emjdoying categoncal constructs offer a clearer, more differentiated-and more humanly economical-understanding of person-situation interactions than is afforded by current concerns (cf., Carlson, 1971) with estabhshing general laws?Over the past fifty years, Jungian type theory has met a curious i.We are grateful to Shanm Jones, Broadus Miller, and James Maney few their hdb in data collection , ,, . . a. Requests for TepraOs shmM be salt to Rae Carlson,
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.