Abric, J.-C. (1984). A theoretical and experimental approach to the study of social representations in a situation of interaction. In R. Farr & S. Moscovici (Eds.),
Social representation (pp. 169–184). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Google ScholarAbric, J.-C. (1993). L’étude expérimentale des représentations sociales. In D. Jodelet (Ed.),
Les représentations sociales (3ème éd). Paris: Presses Universitaires Francaises.
Google ScholarAdams, D. K., & Zener, K. E. (1935). Translators’ preface. In K. Lewin (Ed.),
A dynamic theory of personality. Selected papers. New York and London: McGraw Hill.
Google ScholarAllport, G. W. (1937).
Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Google ScholarAllport, G. W. (1942).
The use of personal documents in psychological science (Bulletin 49). New York, NY: Social Science Research Council.
Google ScholarAllport, G. W. (1965).
Letters from Jenny. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and World.
Google ScholarAllport, G. W. (1966). Traits revisited.
American Psychologist, 21, 1–10.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarAllport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait names: a psycholexial study.
Psychological Monographs, 47, 1.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarAllport, G. W., & Vernon, P. E. (1933).
Studies in expressive movement. New York: Macmillan.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarAlmagor, M., Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (1995). The big seven model: a cross-cultural replication and further exploration of the basic dimensions of natural language trait descriptors.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 300–307.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarArcher, J. (1992).
Ethology and human development. Hemel Hemstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, Barnes & Noble.
Google ScholarArro, G. (2013). Peeking into personality test answers: inter- and intraindividual variety in item interpretations.
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 47, 56–76.
PubMedCrossRefGoogle ScholarAsendorpf, J. B. (1988). Individual response profiles in the behavioral assessment of personality.
European Journal of Personality, 2, 155–167.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarAshton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2005). A defence of the lexical approach to the study of personality structure.
European Journal of Personality, 19, 5–24.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarBarker, R. G. (1968).
Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Google ScholarBartlett, F. C. (1932).
Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Google ScholarBerg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2012).
Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Google ScholarBlock, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description.
Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187–229.
PubMedCrossRefGoogle ScholarBlock, J. (2010). The five-factor framing of personality and beyond: some ruminations.
Psychological Inquiry, 21, 2–25.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarBlurton Jones, N. G. (1967). An ethological study of same aspects of social behaviour of children in nursery school. In D. Morris (Ed.),
Primate ethology (pp. 347–368). London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.
Google ScholarBlurton Jones, N. G. (1972). Categories of child-child interaction. In N. G. Blurton Jones (Ed.),
Ethological studies of child behavior (pp. 97–127). London: Cambridge University Press.
Google ScholarBolden, R., & Moscarola, J. (2000). Bridging the quantitative-qualitative divide: the lexical approach to textual data analysis.
Social Science Computer Review, 18, 450–460.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarBoring, E. G. (1953). A history of introspection. Psychological Bulletin, 50, 169–189.
Bühler, K. (1907). Tatsachen und Probleme zu einer Psychologie der Denkvorgänge I. Über Gedanken.
Archiv für die Gesamte Psychologie, 9, 297–365.
Google ScholarBühler, K. (1934/1982).
Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Stuttgart: UTB Gustav Fischer.
Google ScholarBuss, D. M., & Craik, K. H. (1983). The act frequency approach to personality.
Psychological Review, 90, 105–126.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarButler, J. (2013). Rethinking Introspection. A pluralist approach to the first-person perspective. Houndmills, Basingstroke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Calatayud, F., Montaudouin, S., Le Pape, G., & Bellengier, E. (2006). Analyse du comportement de l’animal ou analyse du discours de l’éthologiste? Réflexions sur l’assimilation des données comportementales à des données textuelles. In JADT 2006. Actes des 8èmes journées internationales d’analyse statistique des données textuelles, (pp. 211–222). Besançon, Franche-Comté: Presses Universitaires.
Caspi, A., & Roberts, B. W. (1999). Personality continuity and change across the life course. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.),
Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 300–326). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Google ScholarCattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality II. Basic traits resolved into clusters.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38, 476–507.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarCattell, R. B. (1946).
The description and measurement of personality. New York: World Book.
Google ScholarCervone, D., Shadel, W. G., & Jencius, S. (2001). Social-cognitive theory of personality assessment.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 33–51.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarCheung, F. M., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leong, F. T. L. (2011). Toward a new approach to the study of personality in culture.
American Psychologist, 66, 593–603.
PubMedCrossRefGoogle ScholarChurch, A. T. (2001). Personality measurement in cross-cultural perspective.
Journal of Personality, 69, 979–1006.
PubMedCrossRefGoogle ScholarChurch, A. T., & Katigbak, M. S. (1988). The emic strategy in the identification and assessment of personality dimensions in a non-western culture: rationale, steps, and a Philippine illustration.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 19, 140–163.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarChurch, A. T., & Katigbak, M. S. (1989). Internal, external, and self-report structure of personality: an investigation of cross-language and cross-cultural generalizability.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 857–872.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarCollingwood, R. G. (1940).
An essay on metaphysics. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
Google ScholarCosta, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Still stable after all these years: Personality as a key to some issues in adulthood and old age. In P. B. Baltes & O. G. Brim Jr. (Eds.),
Life span development and behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 65–102). New York: Academic.
Google ScholarCosta, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992).
Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO–PI–R) and NEO Five-Factor inventory (NEO–FFI). Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Google ScholarDiriwächter, R., & Valsiner, J. (2008).
Striving for the whole: Creating theoretical syntheses. (Eds.). Somerset, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Google ScholarDong, W., Lepri, A., & Pentland, S. (2011). Modeling the so-evolution of behaviors and social relationships using mobile phone data, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia, 134–143.
Dunn, J. (2005). Naturalistic observation of children and their families. In S. Greene & D. Hogan (Eds.),
Researching children’s experience: Approaches and methods (pp. 87–101). Thousands Oaks CA: Sage Publications.
Google ScholarEibl-Eibesfeld, I. (1986).
Die Biologie des menschlichen Verhaltens. Grundriß der Humanethologie. (3. Aufl.). München: Piper Verlag.
Google ScholarEysenck, H. J. (1947).
Dimensions of personality. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Google ScholarEysenck, H. J. (1992). Four ways five factors are not basic.
Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 667–673.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarFahrenberg, J. (2002). Psychologische Interpretation. Biographien - Texte - Tests. Bern: Huber.
Fahrenberg, J. (2008a). Gehirn und Bewusstsein. Neurophilosophische Kontroversen In: S. Gauggel und M. Herrmann (Hrsg.). Handbuch der Neuro- und Biopsychologie (S. 28–43). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Fahrenberg, J. (2008b). Die Wissenschaftskonzeption der Psychologie bei Kant und Wundt.
E-Journal Philosophie der Psychologie, 10. (download
www.Jochen-Fahrenberg.de)
Fahrenberg, J. (2013).
Zur Kategorienlehre der Psychologie. Komplementaritätsprinzip. Perspektiven und Perspektiven-Wechsel. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers.
Google ScholarFahrenberg, J., & Myrtek, M. (Eds.). (2001).
Progress in ambulatory assessment computer-assisted psychological and psychophysiological methods in monitoring and field studies. Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.
Google ScholarFahrenberg, J., Myrtek, M., Pawlik, K., & Perrez, M. (2007). Ambulatory assessment – monitoring behavior in daily life settings. A behavioral-scientific challenge for psychology.
European Journal of Personality Assessment, 23, 206–213.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarFlick, U. (2008). Managing quality in qualitative research. London, UK: Sage.
Freud, S. (1923). The ego and the id.
Standard Edition, 19, 1–66.
Google ScholarGadamer, H. G. (1975).
Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik. (4. Aufl.). Tübingen: Mohr.
Google ScholarGalton, F. (1884). Measurement of character.
Fortnightly Review, 36, 179–185.
Google ScholarGeertz, C. (1973).
The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Google ScholarGödel, K. (1931). Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I.
Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 38, 173–198.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarGoldberg, L. R. (1982). From Ace to Zombie: Some explorations in the language of personality’. In C. D. Spielberger & J. N. Butcher (Eds.),
Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 1, pp. 203–234). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Google ScholarGoldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarGoldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. C. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures.
Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarGunthert, K., Conner, T. S., Armeli, S., Tennen, H., Covault, J., & Kranzler, H. (2007). The serotonin transporter gene polymorphism (5-HTTLPR) and anxiety reactivity in daily life: a daily process approach to gene-environment interaction.
Psychosomatic Medicine, 69, 762–768.
PubMedCrossRefGoogle ScholarHeisenberg, W. (1989).
Encounters with Einstein: And other essays on people, places, and particles. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Google ScholarJames, W. (1890). Principles of psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Holt.
JCGM, Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology. (2008). International vocabulary of metrology – Basic and general concepts and associated terms (VIM) (3rd ed.), Working Group 2 (Eds.), Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology.
John, O. P., Angleitner, A., & Ostendorf, F. (1988). The lexical approach to personality: a historical. Review of trait taxonomic research.
European Journal of Personality, 2, 171–203.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarJovchelovitch, S. (2007). Knowledge in context: Representations, community and culture. London, UK: Routledge.
Kant, I. (1786/1968). Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft (Hrsg. B. Erdmann; P. Menzer, & A. Hoıfler). Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Textausgabe Band IV (pp. 465–565). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Kant, I. (1781/1998). Kritik der reinen Vernunft (Hrsg. J. Timmermann). Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.
Kant, I. (1798/2000). Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht (Hrsg. R. Brandt). Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.
Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2008).
Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and issues (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson. Wadsworth.
Google ScholarKelly, G. A. (1955).
The psychology of personal constructs (Vol. 1 and 2). New York, NY: Norton.
Google ScholarKing, J. E., & Figueredo, A. J. (1997). The five-factor model plus dominance in chimpanzee personality.
Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 257–271.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarLahlou, S. (1996a). A method to extract social representations from linguistic corpora.
Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 278–391.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarLahlou, S. (1996b). Propagation of social representations.
Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 26, 157–175.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarLahlou, S. (1998).
Penser-manger. Paris, France: Les Presses Universitaires de France.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarLahlou, S. (2001). Functional aspects of social representations. In K. Deaux & G. Philogene (Eds.),
Representations of the social: Bridging theoretical traditions (pp. 131–146). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Google ScholarLahlou, S. (2008). L’Installation du Monde: De la représentation à l’activité en situation. Aix-en-Provence, Université de Provence: Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches en Psychologie, 375.
Lahlou, S. (2011). How can we capture the subject’s perspective?: An evidence-based approach for the social scientist.
Social Science Information, 50, 607–655.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarLahlou, S., Nosulenko, V., & Samoylenko, E. (2012).
La numérisation du travail. Théories, méthodes et expérimentations. Paris, France: Collection EDF R & D. Technique & Doc.
Google ScholarLarocco, S. (2014). Ideology, affect, semiotics: Towards a non-personal theory of personality. Integrated Psychological and Behavioral Science, 48, 129–142.
Laucken, U. (1974).
Naive Verhaltenstheorie. Stuttgart: Klett.
Google ScholarLe Pape, G., Reinert, M., Blois-Heulin, C., & Belzung, C. (1997). Découpage de l’activité exploratoire en sous-unités de comportement chez la souris.
Sciences et Techniques de l’Animal de Laboratoire, 22, 131–139.
Google ScholarLe Poidevin, R. (2011). The experience and perception of time
. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/time-experience/
Lehner, P. N. (1998).
Handbook of ethological methods. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Google ScholarLevine, J. (2003). Experience and representation. In Q. Smith & A. Jokic (Eds.),
Consciousness: New essays (pp. 121–136). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Google ScholarLewin, K. (1936).
Principles of topological psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarLittle, B. R. (1987). Personality and the environment. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.),
Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 205–244). New York, NY: Wiley.
Google ScholarLittle, B. R. (2000). Persons, contexts, and personal projects: Assumptive themes of a methodological transactionalism. In S. Wapner, J. Demick, T. Yamamoto, & H. Minami (Eds.),
Theoretical perspectives in environment-behavior research. Underlying assumptions, research problems, and methodologies (pp. 79–88). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarLocke, J., (1689).
Essay concerning human understanding. Book I. The Project Gutenberg EBook #10615.
http://www.gutenberg.org. retreived 08/09/2013
Loftus, G. R. (1996). Psychology will be a much better science when we change the way we analyze data.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5, 161–171.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarMatthews, G., Deary, I. J., & Whiteman, M. C. (2003).
Personality traits (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarMcAdams, D. P. (1992). The five-factor model in personality: a critical appraisal.
Journal of Personality, 60, 329–361.
PubMedCrossRefGoogle ScholarMcCrae, R. R. (2011). Personality theories for the 21st century.
Teaching of Psychology, 38, 209–214.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarMcCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal.
American Psychologist, 52, 509–516.
PubMedCrossRefGoogle ScholarMcCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.),
Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 139–153). New York: Guilford Press.
Google ScholarMcCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications.
Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215.
PubMedCrossRefGoogle ScholarMehl, M. R. & Conner, T. S. (Editors) (2012). Handbook of research methods for studying daily life. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Millikan, R. (1993).
White queen psychology and other essays for Alice. Bradford: MIT Press.
Google ScholarMischel, W. (1968).
Personality and assessment. New York, NY: Wiley.
Google ScholarMischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.),
Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333–352). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Google ScholarMischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Mendoza-Denton, R. (2002). Situation-behavior profiles as a locus of consistency in personality.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 50–54.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarMolenaar, P. C. (2004). A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: bringing the person back into scientific psychology, this time forever.
Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 2, 201–218.
Google ScholarMoscovici, S. (1961). La psychanalyse, son image et son public. Paris, PUF. Published in English as Moscovici, S. (2008). Psychoanalysis, its image and its public. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat?
The Philosophical Review, 83, 435–450.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarNeuman, Y. (2014). Introduction to computational cultural psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Norman, T. (1967).
2,800 personality trait descriptors: Normative operating characteristics for a university population. Ann Arbor, MI: Department of Psychology, University of Michigan.
Google ScholarOgden, C. K. (1932).
Bentham’s theory of fictions. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Google ScholarOmi, Y. (2012). Tension between the theoretical thinking and the empirical method: Is it an inevitable fate for psychology?
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 46, 118–127.
PubMedCrossRefGoogle ScholarPauli, R. (1927).
Einführung in die experimentelle Psychologie. Leipzig: Quelle und Meyer.
Google ScholarPeirce, C. S. (1901/1935).
Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (CP 7.218—1901, On the logic of drawing history from ancient documents especially from testimonies). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Google ScholarPeirce, C. S. (1903/1997). Lecture five: the normative sciences. In C. S. Peirce (Ed.), Pragmatism as a principle and method of right thinking (pp. 205–220). Edited by P. Turrisi. Albany, NY: Suny Press [Harvard Lectures on Pragmatism—CP 5.188-89].
Reinert, M. (1983). Une méthode de classification descendante hiérarchique: Application à l’analyse lexicale par contexte. Les cahiers de l’analyse des données, Vol VIII, n° 2.
Reinert, M. (1990). ALCESTE: Une méthodologie d’analyse des données textuelles et une application: Aurélia de Gérard de Nerval.
Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 26, 24–54.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarRogers, C. R. (1961).
On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Google ScholarRoivainen, E. (2013). Frequency of the use of English personality adjectives: implications for personality theory.
Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 417–420.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarRosenbaum, P. J., & Valsiner, J. (2011). The un-making of a method: from rating scales to the study of psychological processes.
Theory and Psychology, 21, 47–65.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarRotter, J. B. (1954).
Social learning and clinical psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarRoyce, J. (1891).
The religious aspect of philosophy: A critique of the bases of conduct and of faith. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin.
Google ScholarSaucier, G. (1997). Effects of variable selection on the factor structure of person-descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1296–1312.
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1996a). The language of personality: Lexical perspectives on the five factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.),
The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 21–50). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Google ScholarSaucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1996b). Evidence for the Big Five in analyses of familiar English personality adjectives.
European Journal of Personality, 10, 61–77.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarSaucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1998). What is beyond the Big Five?
Journal of Personality, 66, 495–524.
PubMedCrossRefGoogle ScholarSaucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (2001). Lexical studies of indigenous personality factors: premises, products, and prospects.
Journal of Personality, 69, 847–880.
PubMedCrossRefGoogle ScholarSaucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (2002). Assessing the big five: Applications of 10 psychometric criteria to the development of marker scales. In B. de Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.),
Big Five assessment (pp. 30–54). Ashland, OH: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
Google ScholarSchacter, D. (1999). The seven sins of memory: Insights from psychology and cognitive neuroscience.
American Psychologist, 54, 182–203.
PubMedCrossRefGoogle ScholarSchacter, D. L., & Addis, D. R. (2007). Constructive memory: ghosts of past and future.
Nature, 445, 27.
PubMedCrossRefGoogle ScholarSchmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Sexual dimensions of person description: beyond or subsumed by the big five?
Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 141–177.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarSchrödinger, E. (1958).
Mind and matter. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Google ScholarSchwarz, M. (2014). The living fossil of human judgment. The living fossil of human judgment.
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 48, 211–237.
PubMedCrossRefGoogle ScholarShweder, R. A., & D’Andrade, R. G. (1980). The systematic distortion hypothesis. In R. A. Shweder (Ed.),
Fallible judgment in behavioral research: New directions for methodology of social and behavioral science (Vol. 4, pp. 37–58). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Google ScholarShweder, R. A., & Sullivan, M. A. (1990). The semiotic subject of cultural psychology. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.),
Handbook of personality (pp. 399–416). New York, NY: Guilford.
Google ScholarSkinner, B. F. (1957).
Verbal behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarSmith, P. K. (1973). Temporal clusters and individual differences in the behaviour of preschool children. In R. P. Michael & J. H. Crook (Eds.),
Comparative ecology and behaviour of primates (pp. 751–798). London, U.K.: Academic.
Google ScholarSmith, P. K., & Connolly, K. J. (1972). Patterns of play and social interaction in preschool children. In N. G. Blurton Jones (Ed.),
Ethological studies of child behavior (pp. 65–95). London, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Google ScholarSmith, P. K., & Connolly, K. J. (1980).
The ecology of preschool behaviour. London, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Google ScholarStern, W. (1924).
Wertphilosophie (Person und Sache. System des kritischen Personalismus. Dritter Band). Leipzig: Barth.
Google ScholarTellegen, A. (1993). Folk concepts and psychological concepts of personality and personality disorder.
Psychological Inquiry, 4, 122–130.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarTerracciano, A., & 78 Members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project. (2005). Universal features of personality traits from the observer’s perspective: data from 50 cultures.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 547–561.
PubMedCrossRefGoogle ScholarThelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1993).
A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Google ScholarThompson, P. M., Cannon, T. D., & Toga, A. W. (2002). Mapping genetic influences on human brain structure.
Annals of Medicine, 34, 523–536.
PubMedCrossRefGoogle ScholarToomela, A. (2008). Variables in psychology: a critique of quantitative psychology.
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 42, 245–265.
PubMedCrossRefGoogle ScholarToomela, A. (2009). How methodology became a toolbox – and how it escapes from that box. In J. Valsiner, P. Molenaar, M. Lyra, & N. Chaudhary (Eds.),
Dynamic process methodology in the social and developmental sciences (pp. 45–66). New York: Springer.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarToomela, A. (2011). Travel into a fairy land: a critique of modern qualitative and mixed methods psychologies.
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 45, 21–47.
PubMedCrossRefGoogle ScholarToomela, A., & Valsiner, J. (Eds.). (2010).
Methodological thinking in psychology: 60 years gone astray? Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.
Google ScholarUher, J. (2008a). Three methodological core issues of comparative personality research.
European Journal of Personality, 22, 475–496.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarUher, J. (2008b). Comparative personality research: methodological approaches.
European Journal of Personality, 22, 427–455.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarUher, J. (2011a). Individual behavioral phenotypes: an integrative meta-theoretical framework. Why ‘behavioral syndromes’ are not analogues of ‘personality’.
Developmental Psychobiology, 53, 521–548.
PubMedCrossRefGoogle ScholarUher, J. (2011b). Personality in nonhuman primates: What can we learn from human personality psychology? In A. Weiss, J. King, & L. Murray (Eds.),
Personality and temperament in nonhuman primates (pp. 41–76). New York, NY: Springer.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarUher, J. (2013). Personality psychology: lexical approaches and assessment methods reveal only half of the story. A metatheoretical analysis.
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 47, 1–55.
PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle ScholarUher, J. (2014a). Conceiving “personality”: Psychologists’ challenges and basic fundamentals of the Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals.
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. doi:
10.1007/s12124-014-9283-1
Uher, J. (2014b). Developing “personality” taxonomies: Metatheoretical and methodological rationales underlying selection approaches, methods of data generation and reduction principles.
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. doi:
10.1007/s12124-014-9280-4
Uher, J. (2014c). Interpreting “personality” taxonomies: Why previous models cannot capture individual-specific experiencing, behaviour, functioning and development. Major taxonomic tasks still lay ahead.
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. doi:
10.1007/s12124-014-9281-3
Uher, J. (2014d). Agency enabled by the Psyche: Explorations using the Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals. Annals of Theoretical Psychology, 12. doi:
10.1007/978-3-319-10130-9-13
Uher, J., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Personality assessment in the great apes: comparing ecologically valid behavior measures, behavior ratings, and adjective ratings.
Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 821–838.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarUher, J., Asendorpf, J. B., & Call, J. (2008). Personality in the behavior of great apes: temporal stability, cross-situational consistency and coherence in response.
Animal Behaviour, 75, 99–112.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarUher, J., Addessi, E., & Visalberghi, E. (2013a). Contextualised behavioural measurements of personality differences obtained in behavioural tests and social observations in adult capuchin monkeys (
Cebus apella).
Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 427–444.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarUher, J., Werner, C. S., & Gosselt, K. (2013b). From observations of individual behaviour to social representations of personality: developmental pathways, attribution biases, and limitations of questionnaire methods.
Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 647–667.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarValsiner, J. (1987).
Culture and the development of children’s actions: A cultural–historical theory of developmental psychology. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Google ScholarValsiner, J. (1998).
The guided mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Google ScholarValsiner, J. (2000).
Culture and human development. London, UK: Sage.
Google ScholarValsiner, J. (2012).
A guided science: History of psychology in the mirror of its making. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Google ScholarVan Geert, P., & van Dijk, M. (2002). Focus on variability: new tools to study intra-individual variability in developmental data.
Infant Behavior and Development, 25, 340–374.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarVygotsky, L. S. (1934/1962).
Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarWagoner, B. (2009). The experimental methodology of constructive microgenesis. In J. Valsiner, P. Molenaar, N. Chaudhary, & M. Lyra (Eds.),
Handbook of dynamic process methodology in the social and developmental sciences (pp. 99–121). New York: Springer.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarWalach, H. (2013) Psychologie. Wissenschaftstheorie, philosophische Grundlagen und Geschichte. Ein Lehrbuch. (3., überarb. Auflage). Unter Mitarbeit von N. v. Stillfried. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Weber, M. (1904). Die “Objektivität” sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis.
Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, 19, 22–87.
Google ScholarWeber, M. (1949).
The methodology of the social sciences [Translated and edited by E.A. Shils and H.A. Finch]. New York, NY: Free Press.
Google ScholarWeiss, A., Adams, M. J., Widdig, A., & Gerald, M. S. (2011). Rhesus macaques (
Macaca mulatta) as living fossils of hominoid personality and subjective well-being.
Journal of Comparative Psychology, 125, 72–83.
PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle ScholarWesten, D. (1996). A model and a method for uncovering the nomothetic from the idiographic: an alternative to the five-factor model.
Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 400–413.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarWhitehead, A. N. (1929).
Process and reality. New York: Harper.
Google ScholarWong, W.-C. (2006). Understanding dialectical thinking from a cultural-historical perspective.
Philosophical Psychology, 19, 239–260.
CrossRefGoogle ScholarWong, W.-C. (2009). Retracing the footsteps of Wilhelm Wundt: explorations in the disciplinary frontiers of psychology and in Völkerpsychologie.
History of Psychology, 12, 229–265.
PubMedCrossRefGoogle ScholarWright, J. C., & Zakriski, A. L. (2003). When syndromal similarity obscures functional dissimilarity: distinctive evoked environments of externalizing and mixed syndrome children.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 516–527.
PubMedCrossRefGoogle ScholarWundt, W. (1894). Über psychische Kausalität und das Prinzip des psycho-physischen Parallelismus.
Philosophische Studien, 10, 1–124.
Google ScholarWundt, W. (1896).
Grundriss der Psychologie. Stuttgart: Körner. Online at https://archive.org/.
Google ScholarWundt, W. (1904).
Principles of physiological psychology. London, UK: Allen.
Google ScholarWundt, W. (1921).
Logik. Eine Untersuchung der Prinzipien der Erkenntnis und der Methoden Wissenschaftlicher Forschung. Band 3. Logik der Geisteswissenschaften (4. Aufl.). Stuttgart: Enke.
Google Scholar