Interpreting “Personality” Taxonomies: Why Previous Models Cannot Capture Individual-Specific Experiencing, Behaviour, Functioning and Development. Major Taxonomic Tasks Still Lay Ahead

Jana Uher

doi:10.1007/s12124-014-9281-3

Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science

December 2015, Volume 49, Issue 4, pp 600–655

Interpreting “Personality” Taxonomies: Why Previous Models Cannot Capture Individual-Specific Experiencing, Behaviour, Functioning and Development. Major Taxonomic Tasks Still Lay Ahead

Authors
Authors and affiliations

Jana UherEmail author

Regular Article

First Online:: 14 October 2014

DOI: 10.1007/s12124-014-9281-3

Cite this article as:: Uher, J. Integr. psych. behav. (2015) 49: 600. doi:10.1007/s12124-014-9281-3

8 Citations
5 Shares
203 Downloads

Abstract

As science seeks to make generalisations, a science of individual peculiarities encounters intricate challenges. This article explores these challenges by applying the Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals (TPS-Paradigm) and by exploring taxonomic “personality” research as an example. Analyses of researchers’ interpretations of the taxonomic “personality” models, constructs and data that have been generated in the field reveal widespread erroneous assumptions about the abilities of previous methodologies to appropriately represent individual-specificity in the targeted phenomena. These assumptions, rooted in everyday thinking, fail to consider that individual-specificity and others’ minds cannot be directly perceived, that abstract descriptions cannot serve as causal explanations, that between-individual structures cannot be isomorphic to within-individual structures, and that knowledge of compositional structures cannot explain the process structures of their functioning and development. These erroneous assumptions and serious methodological deficiencies in widely used standardised questionnaires have effectively prevented psychologists from establishing taxonomies that can comprehensively model individual-specificity in most of the kinds of phenomena explored as “personality”, especially in experiencing and behaviour and in individuals' functioning and development. Contrary to previous assumptions, it is not universal models but rather different kinds of taxonomic models that are required for each of the different kinds of phenomena, variations and structures that are commonly conceived of as “personality”. Consequently, to comprehensively explore individual-specificity, researchers have to apply a portfolio of complementary methodologies and develop different kinds of taxonomies, most of which have yet to be developed. Closing, the article derives some meta-desiderata for future research on individuals' “personality”.

Keywords

Personality functioning and developmentPhenomenon-methodology matchingBetween-individual and within-individual differencesScientific quantificationNomothetic and ideographic approachesStandardised questionnaire methodsTraitsBig Five Model and Five Factor ModelCompositional structures and process structuresPersonality model and taxonomy

References

Abbey, E., & Diriwächter, R. (Eds.). (2008). Innovating genesis: microgenesis and the constructive mind in action. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
Adams, D. K., & Zener, K. E. (1935). Translators’ preface. In K. Lewin, A dynamic theory of personality. Selected papers. New York and London: McGraw Hill.
Ader, R. (2006) Psychoneuroimmunology. Volume 1 (4th ed.). China: Elsevier Academic Press.
Allport, G. W. (1931). What is a trait of personality? Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 25, 368–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Allport, G. W. (1966). Traits revisited. American Psychologist, 21, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait names: a psycholexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allport, G. W., & Vernon, P. E. (1933). Studies in expressive movement. New York: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
APA, American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
Arro, G. (2013). Peeking into personality test answers: Inter- and intraindividual variety in item interpretations. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 47, 56–76.
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2005). A defence of the lexical approach to the study of personality structure. European Journal of Personality, 19, 5–24.
Baldwin, J. M. (1896). A new factor in evolution. The American Naturalist, 30, 441–451, 536–553.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bauer, M. & Gaskell, G. (Eds). (2000). Qualitative researching with text, image and sound. London: Sage.
Bergman, L. R., & Magnusson, D. (2001). Person-centered research. In T. Cook & C. Ragin (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences: Logic of inquiry and research design (pp. 11333–11339). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergman, L. R., & Trost, K. (2006). The person-oriented versus the variable-oriented approach: Are they complementary, opposites, or exploring different worlds? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52, 377–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Block, J. (2010). The five-factor framing of personality and beyond: Some ruminations. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 2–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohr, N. (1937). Causality and complementarity. Philosophy and Science, 4, 289–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boring, E. G. (1953). A history of introspection. Psychological Bulletin, 50, 169–189.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brower, D. (1949). The problem of quantification of psychological science. Psychological Review, 56, 325–331.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bühler, K. (1907). Tatsachen und Probleme zu einer Psychologie der Denkvorgänge I. Über Gedanken. Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie, 9, 297–365.
Buss, D. M. (2009). How can evolutionary psychology successfully explain personality and individual differences? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 359–366.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, J. (2013). Rethinking introspection. A pluralist approach to the first-person perspective. Houndmills, Basingstroke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Caprara, F. (1996). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality II. Basic traits resolved into clusters. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38, 476–507.
Cattell, R. B. (1965). The scientific analysis of personality. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Cloninger, C. R. (1986). A unified biosocial theory of personality and its role in the development of anxiety states. Psychiatric Developments, 3, 167–226.
Collingwood, R. G. (1940). An essay on metaphysics. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Costa, 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.
Danziger, K. (1997). Naming the mind: How psychology found its language. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Diriwächter, R., & Valsiner, J. (2008). The past and future of the whole. In R. Diriwächter & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Striving for the whole: creating theoretical syntheses (pp. vii–xiii). Somerset: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Diriwächter, R., Valsiner, J., & Sauck, C. (2004). Microgenesis in making sense of oneself: Constructive recycling of personality inventory items. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6, Art. 11.
Dong, 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.
Eysenck, H. J. (1947). Dimensions of personality. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Eysenck, H. J. (1952). The scientific study of psychology. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Eysenck, H. J. (1990). Genetic and environmental contributions to individual differences: The three major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality, 58, 245–261.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahrenberg, J. (1979). Das Komplementaritätsprinzip in der psychophysiologischen Forschung und psychosomatischen Medizin. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 27, 151–167.
Fahrenberg, J. (1992). Komplementarität in der psychophysiologischen Forschung. Grundsätze und Forschungspraxis. In E. P. Fischer, H. S. Herzka & K. H. Reich (Hrsg.), Widersprüchliche Wirklichkeit. Neues Denken in Wissenschaft und Alltag. Komplementarität und Dialogik (pp. 43–77). München: Piper.
Fahrenberg, J. (2004). Annahmen über den Menschen. Menschenbilder aus psychologischer, biologischer, religiöser und interkultureller Sicht. Heidelberg-Kröning: Asanger-Verlag.
Fahrenberg, J. (2008). Die Wissenschaftskonzeptionen der Psychologie bei Kant und Wundt als Hintergrund heutiger Kontroversen. Struktureller Pluralismus der Psychologie und Komplementaritätsprinzip. Defizite der Philosophischen und Psychologischen Anthropologie und ein Plädoyer für eine interdisziplinäre Anthropologie. URL: http://psydok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/volltexte/2008/1557/
Fahrenberg, J. (2013). Zur Kategorienlehre der Psychologie. Komplementaritätsprinzip. Perspektiven und Perspektiven-Wechsel. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers.
Fahrenberg, J., & Myrtek, M. (Eds.). (2001). Progress in ambulatory assessment computer-assisted psychological and psychophysiological methods in monitoring and field studies. Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber.Google Scholar
Fahrenberg, 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 Scholar
Faßnacht, G. (1982). Theory and practice of observing behaviour (2nd ed.). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fleeson, W. (2001). Towards a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 1011–1027.
Flick, U. (2008). Managing quality in qualitative research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Freud, S. (1915). The unconscious. Standard Edition, 14, 159–214.Google Scholar
Gillespie, A., & Zittaun, T. (2010). Studying the moment of thought. In A. Toomela & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Methodological thinking in psychology: 60 years gone astray? (pp. 69–88). Charlotte: Information age publishing.Google Scholar
Giordano, P. J. (2014). Personality as continuous stochastic process: What western personality theory can learn from classical confucianism. Integrated Psychological and Behavioral Science, 48, 111–128.
Gödel, K. (1931). Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 38, 173–198.
Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: the search for universals in personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 141–165). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Goldberg, 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.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": the Big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guilford, J. P. (1959). Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hartmann, N. (1964). Der Aufbau der realen Welt. Grundriss der allgemeinen Kategorienlehre. (3. Aufl.). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Heisenberg, W. (1927). Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. Zeitschrift für Physik, 43, 172–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C. G. & Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of science, 15, 135–75; reproduced in Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation. New York: Free Press.
Hoche, H. U. (2008). Anthropological complementarisms. Linguistic, logical, and phenomenological studies in support of a third way beyond dualism and monism. Paderborn: Mentis Verlag.Google Scholar
Hofsteede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. California: Sage Publications.
Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. (2005). Evolution in four dimensions - Genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic variation in the history of life. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
James, 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.
Kant, I. (1781/1998). Kritik der reinen Vernunft (Hrsg. J. Timmermann). Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1786/1968). Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft (Hrsg. B. Erdmann; P. Menzer, & A. Hofler). Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Textausgabe Band IV (pp. 465–565). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1798/2000). Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht (Hrsg. R. Brandt). Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs (Vol. 1 and 2). New York: Norton.Google Scholar
King, J. E., & Figueredo, A. J. (1997). The five-factor model plus dominance in chimpanzee personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt Psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.Google Scholar
Köhler, W. (1969). The task of Gestalt Psychology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Komatsu, K. (2012). Temporal reticence of the self: who can know myself? Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 46, 357–372.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Køppe, S. (2012). A moderate eclecticism: ontological and epistemological issues. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 46, 1–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahlou, S. (1996). Propagation of social representations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 26, 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahlou, S. (1998). Penser-manger. Paris: Les Presses Universitaires de France.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahlou, 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 Scholar
Lahlou, S., Nosulenko, V., & Samoylenko, E. (2009). SUBCAM technology as an instrument in psychological science. Experimental Psychology, 1, 72–80.Google Scholar
Lamiell, J. T. (1998). ‘Nomothetic’ and ‘Idiographic’: Contrasting Windelband’s understanding with contemporary usage. Theory and Psychology, 8, 23–38.
Lamiell, J. T. (2003). Beyond individual and group differences: Human individuality, scientific psychology, and william Stern’s critical personalism. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Larocco, 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 Scholar
Le Bellu, S., Lahlou, S., & Nosulenko, V. (2010). Capture and transfer the knowledge embodied in a professional act. Social Science Information, 49, 371–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Poidevin, R. (2011). The experience and perception of time. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/time-experience/. Retrieved 14 Mar 2014
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Li, S.-C. (2003). Biocultural orchestration of developmental plasticity across levels: the interplay of biology and culture in shaping the mind and behavior across the life span. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 171–194.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, J. (1689). Essay concerning human understanding. Book I. The Project Gutenberg EBook #10615. http://www.gutenberg.org. Retrieved 08 Sep 2013
Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Genes and environment in personality development. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Luisi, P. L. (2003). Autopoiesis: a review and a reappraisal. Naturwissenschaften, 90, 49–59.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Matthews, G., Deary, I. J., & Whiteman, M. C. (2003). Personality traits (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maturana, H. R. (1975). The organization of the living: A theory of the living organization. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 7, 313–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. (1988). Toward a new philosophy of biology: Observations of an evolutionist. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McAdams, D. P. (1992). The five-factor model in personality: A critical appraisal. Journal of Personality, 60, 329–361.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrae, R. R. (2011). Personality theories for the 21st century. Teaching of Psychology, 38, 209–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509–516.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehl, M. R., & Conner, T. S. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of research methods for studying daily life. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Millikan, R. (1993). White queen psychology and other essays for Alice. Bradford: MIT Press.
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York, NY: Wiley.
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1994). Personality psychology has two goals: Must it be two fields? Psychological Inquiry, 5, 156–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mischel, W. & Shoda, Y. (1998). Reconciling processing dynamics and personality dispositions. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 229–258.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Ayduk, O. (2007). Personality (8th ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Molenaar, 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 Scholar
Moscovici, 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: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical Review, 83, 435–450.
Neuman, Y., Turney, P. D., & Cohen, Y. (2012). How language enables abstraction: a study in computational cultural psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 46, 129–145.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuman, 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.
Ogden, C. K. (1932). Bentham's theory of fictions. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Omi, 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 Scholar
Pauli, R. (1927). Einführung in die experimentelle Psychologie. Leipzig: Quelle und Meyer.
Peirce, 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.
Peirce, C. S. (1902/1958). The simplest mathematics (CP 4.227-323). In Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vols. 1–6, C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (eds.), vols. 7–8, A. W. Burks (ed.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pervin, L. A. & John, O. P. (1997). Personality: theory and research (7th ed). New York, NY: Wiley.
Popper, K. R. (1934). Logik der Forschung. Wien: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Prigogine, I. (1996). The end of certainty. Time, chaos, and the new laws of nature. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Richards, J. M. (1990). Units of analysis and the individual difference fallacy in environmental assessment. Environment & Behaviour, 22, 307–319.
Rosenbaum, 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 Scholar
Rothschuh, K. E. (1963). Theorie des Organsimus. Bios – Psyche – Pathos (2. erw. Aufl.). München: Urban & Schwarzenberg.Google Scholar
Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Royce, J. (1891). The religious aspect of philosophy: a critique of the bases of conduct and of faith. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin.Google Scholar
Rychlak, J. F. (1968). A philosophy of science for personality theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salvatore, S., & Valsiner, J. (2010). Between the general and the unique: overcoming the nomothetic versus idiographic opposition. Theory and Psychology, 20, 817–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salvatore, S., Gennaro, A., & Valsiner, J. (2013). Making sense of infinite uniqueness: The emerging system of idiographic science (Yearbook of idiographic science) (Eds.). Charlotte: Information Age Publishers.Google Scholar
Sameroff, A. (2010). A unified theory of development: a dialectic integration of nature and nurture. Child Development, 81, 6–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, T., Wakabayashi, K., Nameda, A., Yasuda, Y., & Watanabe, Y. (2010). Understanding a personality as a whole. Transcending the Anglo-american methods focus and continental-european holism through a look at dynamic emergence processes. In A. Toomela & J. Valsiner J. (Eds.), Methodological thinking in psychology: 60 years gone astray? (pp. 89–119). Charlotte: Information Age Publishers.Google Scholar
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1996). 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: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Schacter, D. (1999). The seven sins of memory: Insights from psychology and cognitive neuroscience. American Psychologist, 54, 182–203.
Schacter, D. L. & Addis, D. R. (2007). Constructive memory: Ghosts of past and future. Nature, 445, 27.
Shotter. J. (1975). Images of man in psychological research. London: Methuen.
Shweder, 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: Guilford.Google Scholar
Stern, W. (1911). Die Differentielle Psychologie in ihren methodischen Grundlagen. Leipzig: Barth.Google Scholar
Stern, W. (1918). Grundgedanken der personalistischen Philosophie. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard.Google Scholar
Stern, W. (1924). Wertphilosophie (Person und Sache. System des kritischen Personalismus. Dritter Band). Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth.
Stern, W. (1935). Allgemeine Psychologie auf personalistischer Grundlage. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tellegen, A. (1993). Folk concepts and psychological concepts of personality and personality disorder. Psychological Inquiry, 4, 122–130.
Terracciano, 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 Scholar
Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1993). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Individuality. New York: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. L. (1939). On the fallacy of imputing the correlations found for groups to the individuals or smaller groups composing them. American Journal of Psychology, 52, 122–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toomela, 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 Scholar
Toomela, 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 Scholar
Uher, J. (2010). Metatheoretical and methodological approaches in differential and personality research: New insights from a cross-species comparative perspective. In M. Blatny, M. Hrebicková, S. Kourilová, A. Slezácková, P. Kveton & D. Voboril (Eds.). 15th European Conference on Personality. Institute of Psychology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.
Uher, J. (2011a). Individual behavioral phenotypes: an integrative metatheoretical framework. Why 'behavioral syndromes' are not analogues of 'personality'. Developmental Psychobiology, 53, 521–548.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uher, 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: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uher, 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 Scholar
Uher, 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., 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 Scholar
Uher, 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 Scholar
Valsiner, J. (1987). Culture and the development of children’s actions: A cultural–historical theory of developmental psychology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Valsiner, J. (1998). The guided mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Valsiner, J. (2000). Culture and human development. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Valsiner, J. (2012). A guided science: History of psychology in the mirror of its making. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
van 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 Scholar
Varela, F. J., Maturana, H. R., & Uribe, R. (1974). Autopoiesis: the organization of living systems, its characterization and a model. BioSystems, 5, 187–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vedhara, K. & Irwin, M. (2005). Human psychoneuroimmunology. Oxford University Press.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1937). Das Gefüge des Lebens. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
von Bertalanffy, L. (1973). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York: George Braziller.Google Scholar
von Uexküll, J. (1909). Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, W. (1994). The fallacy of misplaced intentionality in social representation research. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 24, 243–266.
Wagoner, 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 Scholar
Walach, H. (2013) Psychologie. Wissenschaftstheorie, philosophische Grundlagen und Geschichte. Ein Lehrbuch. (3., überarb. Auflage). Unter Mitarbeit von N. v. Stillfried. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Watson, J. D., & Crick, F. H. C. (1953). A structure for deoxyribose mucleic acid. Nature, 171, 737–738.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westen, 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 Scholar
Westen, D. (1999). The scientific status of unconscious processes: Is Freud really dead? Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 47, 1061–1106.
Whitehead, A. N. (1929a). Process and reality. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Whitehead, A. N. (1929b). The function of reason (Chapter 2, pp. 37–61). Boston: Beacon Press.
Whorf, B. L. (1958). Language and stereotypes. In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (3rd ed., pp. 1–9). New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Wong, 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 Scholar
WHO, World Health Organisation. (2010). International statistical classifcation of diseases and related health problems (10th revision). Malta: WHO.
Wundt, W. (1863). Vorlesungen über die Menschen- und Thierseele. Hamburg: Voss.
Wundt, W. (1894). Über psychische Kausalität und das Prinzip des psycho-physischen Parallelismus. Philosophische Studien, 10, 1–124.Google Scholar
Wundt, W. (1896). Grundriss der Psychologie. Stuttgart: Körner. Online at https://archive.org/
Wundt, W. (1904). Principles of physiological psychology. London, UK: Allen.
Wundt, W. (1920). Logik. Eine Untersuchung der Prinzipien der Erkenntnis und der Methoden Wissenschaftlicher Forschung. Band 2. Logik der exakten Wissenschaften (4. Aufl.). Stuttgart: Enke.Google Scholar
Wundt, 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
Zuckerman, M. (1991). Psychobiology of personality. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Jana Uher
- 1
- 2
Email author

1.Department of PsychologyLondon School of Economics and Political ScienceLondon WC2A 2AEUnited Kingdom
2.Comparative Differential and Personality PsychologyFree University BerlinBerlinGermany

Interpreting “Personality” Taxonomies: Why Previous Models Cannot Capture Individual-Specific Experiencing, Behaviour, Functioning and Development. Major Taxonomic Tasks Still Lay Ahead

Abstract

Keywords

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Cookies