Investing in the Personality Vulnerability Research Program--Current Dividends and Future Growth: Rejoinder to Coyne, Thompson, and Whiffen (2004).

The authors do not see any benefit to J. C. Coyne. R. Thompson, and V. Whiffen's (2004) proposal to draw sharp boundaries between psychodynamic vulnerability theories, research on the onset of syndromal depression, and research with vulnerable, nondepressed populations. These domains have been and remain mutually relevant. Coyne et al. did not bring forward new evidence concerning the 6 issues addressed by D. C. Zuroff. M. Mongrain. and D. A. Santor (2004); consequently, the authors stand by their conclusions. According to Lakatos (as cited in B. Gholson & P. Barker. 1985), scientists justifiably continue to invest in research programs as long as the programs remain progressive. The personality vulnerability program is theoretically and empirically progressive and merits continued investment. Nevertheless, the field would benefit if Coyne et al. articulated a systematic contextualist research program to compete with the personality research program. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)