| Abstract: | Two major points raised by Seligman in his commentary are discussed. First, attachment research has developed empirical methods for studying internal representations. In our view, this adds to our understanding rather than overvalues attachment as a construct or as a methodological approach. Second, we suggest that nomothetic (the study of general laws which hold for groups of individuals) and idiographic (the study of specific laws which hold for individuals) approaches to knowledge are complementary rather than competitive and that each will make use of certain observations in different ways. We point out that the purpose of the Journal's Special Issue that occasioned Seligman's commentary was to acquaint readers with empirical advances in the study of internal representations. We look forward to a continuing dialogue among clinicians, researchers, and theoreticians. |
