In many ways, I do see attachment theory as an operationalization of Freud
(our childhood haunts us).
There can be no doubt that Bowby and the "attachment" gang were highly *influenced* by psychoanalysis -- attachment might even be seen as a "development" of psychoanalysis -- but I don't understand why you characterize it as an "operationalization." "Operational definitions" were badly misunderstood and badly distorted by the behavioral psychologists who picked them up from physics in the first place, and the "operational attitude" turned out to be a failure even in the discipline of its birth. They were flirted with and then abaandoned by logical positivist philosophers of science pretty early in the day. You might be interested in my 1992 _Theory & Psychology_ article, "Of Immortal Mythological Beasts: Operationism in Psychology" (avaliable on-line at http://www.yorku.ca/christo/papers/operat.htm)
Regards, -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 416-736-5115 ext. 66164 fax: 416-736-5814 http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ ============================ .
--- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
