Data concerning citation of laws ( n = 157) and theories ( n = 699) were collected from psychology textbooks across 112 years (1885–1996) of psychology. Three hypotheses concerning the comparative “citation strength” of the terms law and theory in psychology were set up to be tested: (1) the number of laws cited in psychology textbooks has increased over 112 years; (2) the number of theories cited in psychology textbooks has increased over 112 years; and (3) the ratio of laws-to-theories cited in psychology textbooks has remained relatively balanced over 112 years. Results showed that Hypotheses 1 and 3 were not confirmed, and Hypothesis 2 was confirmed. It was suggested that psychology has a need for a more balanced relationship between number of laws and theories cited in textbooks. Supplemental analyses tracked citation counts of specific laws and theories across 112 years to detect strength of citation and change in those concepts over time. Research was suggested concerning the semantic issues associated with use of the terms law and theory in psychology.

No abstract

A measure called “theories-to-laws ratio” (number of cited theories divided by number of cited laws in textbooks) was used to assess hypotheses concerning the concept of an “hierarchy of sciences” and psychology's place among the sciences. (1) The ratio will be well-balanced, i.e., show low values, for the “natural” sciences (physics, chemistry, biology) and be poorly balanced, i.e., show high values, for the “social” sciences (anthropology, sociology). (2) The theories-to-laws ratio of psychology will be closer to the mean of the “social” sciences than to the mean of the “natural” sciences. Analysis showed a 67% agreement between the present data and the predicted “hierarchy of sciences” relative ordering of the sciences so Hypotheses 1 and 2 were confirmed. Other quantitative measures, in addition to this ratio, might be developed to evaluate further psychology's place among the sciences.

Three analyses are reported of the empirical assessment of naming in psychology: (1) authors' naming ratios (total surname counts divided by total number of textbook pages) in introductory psychology textbooks, (2) analysis of individual psychologists frequencies of citation, and (3) identification, cataloguing, and categorizing eponyms. Analyses indicate that current (1990–1994) authors show significantly different frequencies of naming among themselves and that during the past 75 years there has been a significant increase in naming over-all in textbooks as well as naming particular psychologists. Eponyms on a list of over 1,000 collected eponyms are assigned to low-, medium-, or high-frequency categories based on referencing in selected source books. Questions are raised concerning the use of naming, citation counts, and eponyms in the historical analysis of psychology as a science.

No abstract