, and ^ tm sodai psychc ^ sgicai ir ) ¥ ® di 0 n of

The present paper discusses three recent developments in the field of personality: (1) an infusion of social p&ycbolĉ ists, (2) a proliferation of interactionist models, (3) the developnent of raethodoic^cal strategies combining nomothetic and idiographic approaches. Advantages and disadvantages of these developments are discussed, and three problems associated with them are addressed: (1) an overemphasis on phenomenology, (2) an overemphasis on idiosyncracy, and (3) an unsatisfactory level of theory development. It is concluded that the present deveJopments have had a stimulating effect on the field but they need to be int^rated with the traditional personological goals of: (1) developing a taxonomy of individuals (as well as a taxonomy of interactions) and (2) developing a more satisfactory theory of the whole organism within which to embed our minitheories. We recommend that such a theory attempt to incorporate the insights of the social learning and social cognition approaches with the recent and exciting developments in evt^uttonary theory. A decade ago, there were rumors that the field of personality was dead, or if not yet among the departed, at least on the critical list. The critical injuries can be traced in large part to several disparaging reviews of the traditional assessment literature, and Mischel (1968) is often credited with delivering the most damaging blow. There were several reactions to the alleged demise of the field of personality. There were those who greeted the death knell with skepticism. For instance. Block (1971, 1977) argued that critiques such as Mischel's had missed the mark, by focusing on poorly done studies of personality (see also Alker, 1972; Hogan, DeSoto, & Solano, 1977; and Wachtel, 1973 for similar responses to Mischel's critique). Some accepted the disheartening news, but attempted to breathe new life into the field with methodological resuscitation. One such approach can be seen in the rise in popularity of "person-environment-interactionist" models, which hold that individual differences can be studied fruitfully, but not without the joint consideration of situational variables. Another such approach is found in the attempts to combine the traditional nomothetic methodologies with the idiographic approach that Allport (1937) claimed as essential to personology. Finally, there were those who accepted the fact We wisii to thank David Funder and Stephen G. West for their heipfui comments on an earlier draft of this article. Requests for reprints should be addressed to Douglas T. Kenrick, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287. Journal of Personality 51:3, September 1983. Copyright© 1983 by Duke University Press. Interactionism, idiographics, invasion 287 of this imminent passing as an opportunity to expand their own territories. Social psychologists, some of whom relegated the traditional field of personality to an epistomological status just above that of phrenology and astrology, moved in vast numbers to fill the anticipated vacancy before the body was even cold. Whatever the merits of the traditional approaches to personality, it can hardly be denied that the contributions of the interactionists, idiographers, and social psychologists have had a profound effect on the current shape of the field of personality. The main purpose of this paper will be to elucidate some of the theoretical issues associated with these three developments. The Social Psychological Presence If one were to list cumulatively the members of the editorial boards of the Journal of Personality, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, The Journal of Research in Personality, and Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, during the last decade, one would find the ratio of social psychologists to personologists quite a bit out of line with the relative preeminence of the word "personality" in the titles of these journals. The state of affairs in Division 8 (Personality and Social) was enough to prompt a small group of desperate personality researchers to solicit help in an attempt to get representation there. According to Carlson (1976), "Personality psychology, in recent years, seems to have lost its organizational home in APA (Division 8, JPSP). " For most of the '70s the associate editors ("action editors") oiJPSP were all primarily social psychologists (cf. Sechrest, 1976). ' Since social psychologists tend to hold a number of theoretical and methodological biases that are directly at odds with key assumptions of personality research, the preponderance of social psychologists in key positions on the personality journals is perhaps rather ironic.