Ainsworth M.

Baum W. M.

Bauman Z.

Belsky J.

Berlin L.

Bowlby J.

Clarke-Stewart K. A.

Derrida J.

Dollard J.

Funkenstein A.

Heringman N.

Kuhn T. S.

Lamb M. E.

Lyotard J.-F.

Mahler M. S.

Main M.

Popper K.

Rutter M.

Siegel D.

Solomon J.

Stern D. N.

Taylor C.

van IJzendoorn M. H.

 In this article, we pose a question about the link between theory and measure within the field of psychology and use an influential psychological theory—attachment theory—as a case study to test our question. Using a multidisciplinary approach, we incorporate broad historical, sociological, and philosophical perspectives to support our thesis that in today’s psychological field there is pressure to achieve instantaneous empirical answers to broad theoretical questions and without due awareness of this state of affairs, a confusion could occur between theoretical and empirical constructs. In our review of attachment theory, we look at the connection between the theory and the empirical definitions of the Strange Situation Procedure (SSP) and conclude that the use of the terminology “gold standard” in relation to the SSP is an imprudent characterization of what is otherwise a robust measurement tool. We theorize that this type of terminology may result in overreliance on the measure instead of on the theory. </jats:p

Yair Ziv

Yotam Hotam

Crossref

Theory & Psychology

Theory and measure in the psychological field: The case of attachment theory and the strange situation procedure

Theory and measure in the psychological field: The case of attachment theory and the strange situation procedure

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Crossref