Applied psychology in action: Reply to Dr. Wells and to miss Epstein

Abstract

Comments on an article by F. L. Wells titled Comment on word meaning (1954) and an article by Mary Epstein titled A note on "the non-directive approach in advertising appeals' (1954); both of these articles comment on the current author's original article (see record 1955-01709-001 ). The author notes that Dr. Wells is correct in his analysis; the author should have used credulity in his original article. As for Epstein's comments, she is somewhat correct when she says that the non-interference principle is not applicable to advertising. If there were no "interference," there would be no selling. However, doesn't a patient have an attitude towards the therapist at the end of the sessions? Actually, there is no pure example of inferred advertising. In the end, it is the atmosphere created by the advertisement that is important. Direct-inferred, directive-nondirective, are more logical constructs than useful tools. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)