ABSTRACT
The account which has been given in the previous pages of differing theories of temperament is not claimed as exhaustive. It is hoped, however, that the theories here expounded have at least served to emphasize some of the attitudes which have been, and are still, adopted towards this most controversial question. It was realized at the outset that the historical investigation that we proposed might end in one of three ways. It might have been that, after tracing the development of different theories we should be able to say ‘Such and such a factor occurs in all the accounts of temperaments which we have considered; this then is obviously the essence of temperament and a definition can be framed accordingly.’ We have not, it is clear, found any such universally admitted factor. Another possibility which had to be recognized was that at the end we might feel compelled to admit that not merely had no common factor emerged, but that we found no evidence in the accounts we had studied to justify the assumption that any such temperamental factor exists. To take this line would not necessarily imply that we had joined the ranks of the behaviourists but it would at least mean that we believed that individual differences in behaviour can be fully explained on certain well defined lines and that in consequence we do not feel the need of introducing such a concept as that of temperament. However optimistic we may be as to the future emergence of such an explanation we must admit that it is not yet ready. In the meantime, it may be at least a matter of convenience to postulate a temperamental determinant to denote certain differences in behaviour of which the true nature is still unknown. When we speak of knowing the true nature of such differences we do not mean merely the identification of the particular physiological functions or the inter-relations of functions which appear to produce a specific reaction. We include also the understanding of the process in virtue of which total reactions, which are themselves different, retain for a given individual in the presence of diverse stimuli, certain constant factors. Even Mr, J. B. Watson could not stricture us severely if we would agree that the use of the term is merely a matter of convenience and that we would be content to let it go in a more enlightened day. We would bind ourselves to resist the temptation to hypostatize a term, and we would refuse to impute to a term of convenience an active causality.
