Search

This paper looks at the program for social psychology presented by Floyd Allport in his Social Psychology of 1924. It contextualizes Allport's program in terms of intellectual currents of the time and the views of his teachers at Harvard University, specifically the philosopher Ralph Barton Perry and the psychologists Edwin B. Holt and Hugo Münsterberg. Finally, the paper analyzes responses to Allport's program at the time and later, retrospective responses. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines Floyd and Gordon Allport's early work on “personality” psychology. In the early 1920s, personality was an unorthodox topic, and for the Allports it initially served as an intellectual and personal bond. Floyd proposed the subject to his brother as a dissertation topic, and the two worked closely on developing personality tests. By 1924, however, “personality” had become the site of a dispute between the two brothers over the intellectual and methodological character of American psychology. The present study examines the origins of this dispute, while gauging the personal and professional ramifications of the dispute. On a larger level, this essay explores the role and meaning of “personality” in the academic culture of 1920s America. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper an attempt is made to specify the original conception of the social dimensions of cognition, emotion and behavior—and of a distinctively social psychology—that was held by early American social psychologists, but abandoned by later generations of social psychologists committed to Floyd Allport's individualistic experimental program. Two influential forms of “individualism” in the work of Floyd Allport are distinguished and detailed. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Authors in this collection offer both critique and contextualist counterpoint to the standard, “official” histories of the field—successive editions of the Handbook of Social Psychology in 1954, 1968, 1985, and 1998. Unlike mainstream histories, the collected studies do not together constitute a seamless chronicle of continual progress for practitioners in a research area seeking social science status, viability, and legitimacy. Rather the authors focus on choice points, crises, and debates (some still ongoing), pay special heed to non-mainstream branches and voices, question numerous assumptions concerning the interrelationships among social psychological methodology, ontology (Danziger; MacMartin & Winston; Stam, Radtke, & Lubek), boundaries (Good), and individualisms (moral, political, and/or methodological). The specific contributions of Floyd and Gordon Allport are discussed from several perspectives as they helped define and shape and write the history of the field (Lubek & Apfelbaum; Parkovnick; Greenwood; Chung), and bridge it to neighboring areas (personality) and disciplines (psychology and sociology) (Nicholson; Barenbaum; Cherry). The constraints, origin myths, insensitivities, and omissions of standard histories are pointed out (Samelson), some partial correctives are advanced, and a more generative role for future historical studies is suggested. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]