Conceiving “personality”: Psychologist’s challenges and basic fundamentals of the Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals

Jana Uher

doi:10.1007/s12124-014-9283-1

Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science

September 2015, Volume 49, Issue 3, pp 398–458

Conceiving “personality”: Psychologist’s challenges and basic fundamentals of the Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals

Authors
Authors and affiliations

Jana UherEmail author

Regular Article

First Online:: 05 October 2014

DOI: 10.1007/s12124-014-9283-1

Cite this article as:: Uher, J. Integr. psych. behav. (2015) 49: 398. doi:10.1007/s12124-014-9283-1

9 Citations
9 Shares
204 Downloads

Abstract

Scientists exploring individuals, as such scientists are individuals themselves and thus not independent from their objects of research, encounter profound challenges; in particular, high risks for anthropo-, ethno- and ego-centric biases and various fallacies in reasoning. The Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals (TPS-Paradigm) aims to tackle these challenges by exploring and making explicit the philosophical presuppositions that are being made and the metatheories and methodologies that are used in the field. This article introduces basic fundamentals of the TPS-Paradigm including the epistemological principle of complementarity and metatheoretical concepts for exploring individuals as living organisms. Centrally, the TPS-Paradigm considers three metatheoretical properties (spatial location in relation to individuals’ bodies, temporal extension, and physicality versus “non-physicality”) that can be conceived in different forms for various kinds of phenomena explored in individuals (morphology, physiology, behaviour, the psyche, semiotic representations, artificially modified outer appearances and contexts). These properties, as they determine the phenomena’s accessibility in everyday life and research, are used to elaborate philosophy-of-science foundations and to derive general methodological implications for the elementary problem of phenomenon-methodology matching and for scientific quantification of the various kinds of phenomena studied. On the basis of these foundations, the article explores the metatheories and methodologies that are used or needed to empirically study each given kind of phenomenon in individuals in general. Building on these general implications, the article derives special implications for exploring individuals’ “personality”, which the TPS-Paradigm conceives of as individual-specificity in all of the various kinds of phenomena studied in individuals.

Keywords

PersonalityPhilosophy-of-scienceExperiencePsycheBehaviorPhenomenon-methodology matchingStandardised questionnaire methodsContextualized methodsMethodology developmentScientific quantification

References

Adam, M., & Hanna, P. (2012). Your past is not their present: Time, the other, and ethnocentrism in cross-cultural personality psychology. Theory and Psychology, 22, 436–451.Google Scholar
Adams, D. K. & Zener, K. E. (1935). Translators’ preface. In K. Lewin (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. Selected papers. New York and London: McGraw Hill
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait names: A psycholexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47, 1.
Althusser, L., & Balibar, E. (1970). Reading capital. London: New Left Books.Google Scholar
Aristotle (350 BCE). Metaphysics. Book IV. Translated by W. D. Ross. Provided by the internet classics archive. http://classics.mit.edu//Aristotle/metaphysics.html, retrieved 15/03/2014
Arro, G. (2013). Peeking into personality test answers: Inter- and intraindividual variety in item interpretations. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 47, 56–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Augustine, St. (397/1955). Confessions and Enchiridion (transl. and ed. by A. C. Outler). Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press.
Baldwin, J. M. (1896). A new factor in evolution. The American Naturalist, 30, 441–451, 536–553.
Baldwin, J. M. (1906). Mental development in the child and the race: Methods and processes (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan & Co.Google Scholar
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bohr, N. (1937). Causality and complementarity. Philosophy and Science, 4, 289–298.Google Scholar
Boring, E. G. (1953). A history of introspection. Psychological Bulletin, 50, 169–189.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Brentano, F. C. (1874). Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.
Bridgeman, P. W. (1927). The logic of modern physics. New York: Macmillan.
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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Brunswik, E. (1952). The conceptual framework of psychology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brunswik, E. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological Review, 62, 193–217.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Bühler, K. (1907). Tatsachen und Probleme zu einer Psychologie der Denkvorgänge. I Über Gedanken. Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie, 9, 297–365.Google Scholar
Bühler, K. (1934/1982). Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Stuttgart: UTB Gustav Fischer.
Burkart, T., Kleining, G., & Witt, H. (Eds.). (2010). Dialogische Introspektion. Ein gruppengestütztes Verfahren zur Erforschung des Erlebens. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
Butler, J. (2013). Rethinking introspection. A pluralist approach to the first-person perspective. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Caprara, F. (1996). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1950). An introduction to personality study. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B., & Warburton, F. W. (1967). Objective personality and motivation tests. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Chang, H. (2009). Operationalism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 ed). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/operationalism. Retrieved 23 Aug 2014.
Cloninger, C. R. (1986). A unified biosocial theory of personality and its role in the development of anxiety states. Psychiatric Developments, 3, 167–226.Google Scholar
Collingwood, R. G. (1940). An essay on metaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
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: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. (1970). Essentials of psychological testing. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
de Raad, B., & Barelds, D. P. H. (2008). A new taxonomy of Dutch personality traits based on a comprehensive and unrestricted list of descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 347–364.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Deutscher, G. (2010). Through the language glass: Why the world looks different in other languages. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
Devereux, G. (1967). From anxiety to method in the behavioral sciences. The Hague: Mouton & Co.Google Scholar
Dilthey, W. (1894/1957). Ideen über eine beschreibende und zergliedernde Psychologie (Gesammelte Schriften, Bd. V, S. 139–240). Stuttgart: Teubner.
Diriwächter, R., & Valsiner, J. (2008). Striving for the whole: Creating theoretical syntheses. (Eds.). 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.
Durkheim, E. (1919). Les règles de la méthode sociologique (7eth ed.). Paris: Libraire Felix Alcan.Google Scholar
Eysenck, H. J. (1947). Dimensions of personality. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Fahrenberg, J. (1979). Das Komplementaritätsprinzip in der psychophysiologischen Forschung und psychosomatischen Medizin. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 27, 151–167.PubMedGoogle Scholar
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. (2002). Psychologische Interpretation. Biographien - Texte - Tests. Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
Fahrenberg, J. (2004). Annahmen über den Menschen. Menschenbilder aus psychologischer, biologischer, religiöser und interkultureller Sicht. Heidelberg-Kröning: Asanger-Verlag.Google Scholar
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 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. (2008c). 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 Scholar
Faucheux, C. (1976). Cross-cultural research in experimental social psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 269–322.Google Scholar
Fischer, D. H. (1970). Historians' fallacies: Toward a logic of historical thought (pp. 209–213). New York: Harper Torchbooks.Google Scholar
Fleck, L. (1935/1980). Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. English translation: (1979). The genesis and development of a scientific fact (T. J. Trenn & R. K. Merton, Eds.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Fleeson, W. (2004). Moving personality beyond the person–situation debate: The challenge and opportunity of within-person variability. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 83–87.Google Scholar
Flick, U. (2008). Managing quality in qualitative research. London, UK: Sage.
Freeman, H. D., & Gosling, S. D. (2010). Personality in nonhuman primates: A review and evaluation of past research. American Journal of Primatology, 71, 1–19.Google Scholar
Freud, S. (1915). The unconscious. Standard Edition, 14, 159–214.Google Scholar
Funder, D. C. (2004). The personality puzzle (3rd ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
Funder, D. C. (2006). Towards a resolution of the personality triad: Persons, situations and behaviors. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 21–34.Google Scholar
Gadamer, H. G. (1975). Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik. (4. Aufl.). Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
Galton, F. (1874). English men of science: Their nature and nurture. London: Macmillan & Co.Google Scholar
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Geertz, C. (1988). Works and lives: The anthropologist as author. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 309–320.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1967). New reasons for realism. Synthese, 17, 162–172.Google Scholar
Gillespie, A. & Cornish, F. (2014). Sensitizing questions: A method to facilitate analyzing the meaning of an utterance. Integrated Psychological and Behavioral Science. doi:10.1007/s12124-014-9265-3
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.Google Scholar
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.Google Scholar
Goodall, J. (1986). The chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of behavior. Cambridge: The Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Guilford, J. P. (1959). Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Hartmann, N. (1964). Der Aufbau der realen Welt. Grundriss der allgemeinen Kategorienlehre. (3. Aufl.). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Hartshorne, H., & May, M. A. (1928). Studies in the nature of character. Vol 1. Studies in deceit. New York: Macmillen.Google Scholar
Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum.Google Scholar
Heisenberg, W. (1927). Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. Zeitschrift für Physik, 43, 172–198.Google Scholar
Hinde, R. A. (1982). Ethology: Its nature and relations with other sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hirschberger, J. (1980). Geschichte der Philosophie. Zweitausendeins: Band I. Altertum und Mittelalter. Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
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
Holloway, R. L., Jr. (1969). Culture: A human domain. Current Anthropology, 10, 47–64.Google Scholar
Hume, D. (1757/1957). The natural history of religion. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Husserl, E. (1928). Vorlesungen zur Phänomenologie des inneren Zeitbewusstseins (Hrsg. M. Heidegger). Halle: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
James, W. (1890a). Principles of psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Holt.Google Scholar
James, W. (1890b). Principles of psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Holt.Google Scholar
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.
Kant, I. (1786/1968). Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft (Hrsg. B. Erdmann; P. Menzer, & A. Höfler). Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Textausgabe Band IV (pp. 465–565). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
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
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 my self? Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 46, 357–372.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Køppe, S. (2012). A moderate eclecticism: Ontological and epistemological issues. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 46, 1–19.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Kubinger, K. D. (2009). The technique of objective personality-tests sensu R. B. Cattell nowadays: The Viennese pool of computerized tests aimed at experiment-based assessment of behavior. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 41, 1024–1036.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions (1st ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1976). The function of dogma in scientific research. In I. R. Averill (Ed.), Patterns of psychological thought (pp. 47–66). Washington: Hemisphere Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Lahlou, S. (1996). A method to extract social representations from linguistic corpora. Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 278–391.Google Scholar
Lahlou, S. (1998). Penser-manger. Paris, France: Les Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Lahlou, S. (2006). L’activité du point de vue de l’acteur et la question de l’inter-subjectivité: Huit années d’expériences avec des caméras miniaturisées fixées au front des acteurs (SubCam). Communications, 80, 209–234.Google Scholar
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.Google 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
Laureys, S., Pellas, F., Van Eeckhout, P., Ghorbel, S., Schnakers, C., Perrin, F., Berre, J., Faymonville, M. E., Pantke, K. H., Damas, F., Lamy, M., Moonen, G., & Goldman, S. (2005). The locked-in syndrome: What is it like to be conscious but paralyzed and voiceless? Progress in Brain Research, 150, 495–511.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Le Poidevin, R. (2011). The experience and perception of time. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition), E. N. Zalta (Ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/time-experience/ retrieved 14/03/2014
Levine, J. (2003). Experience and representation. In Q. Smith & A. Jokic (Eds). Consciousness: New essays (pp. 121–136). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. D., & Granic, I. (2000). Emotion, development, and self-organization: Dynamic systems approaches to emotional development (Eds.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Locke, J. (1689). Essay concerning human understanding. Book I. The Project Gutenberg EBook #10615. http://www.gutenberg.org/. retrieved 08/09/2013
Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Genes and environment in personality development. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Luisi, P. L. (2003). Autopoiesis: A review and a reappraisal. Naturwissenschaften, 90, 49–59.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–96.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1988). Toward a new philosophy of biology: Observations of an evolutionist. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61, 204–217.PubMedGoogle Scholar
McCrae, R. R. (2011). Personality theories for the 21st century. Teaching of Psychology, 38, 209–214.Google Scholar
Michell, J. (1997). Quantitative science and the definition of measurement in psychology. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 393–394.
Michell, J. (2003). The quantitative imperative: Positivism, naive realism and the place of qualitative methods in psychology. Theory & Psychology, 13, 5–31.
Michell, J. (2011). Qualitative research meets the ghost of Pythagoras. Theory & Psychology, 21, 241–259.
Millikan, R. (1993). White queen psychology and other essays for Alice. Bradford: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1994). Personality psychology has two goals: Must it be two fields? Psychological Inquiry, 5, 156–158.Google Scholar
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1998). Reconciling processing dynamics and personality dispositions. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 229–258.PubMedGoogle Scholar
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
Morris, E. K. (1988). Contextualism: The world view of behavior analysis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 46, 289–323.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, UK: Polity Press
Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical Review, 83, 435–450.Google Scholar
Neuman, Y. (2014). Introduction to computational cultural psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Newton, I. (1704). Opticks: or, a Treatise of the reflexions. refractions, inflexions and colours of Light. Also two treatises of the species and magnitude of curvilinear figures. London, UK: Smith and Walford.
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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Pauli, R. (1927). Einführung in die experimentelle Psychologie. Leipzig: Quelle und Meyer.Google Scholar
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.
Pellegrini, A. D. (2011). “In the eye of the beholder”: Sex bias in observations and ratings of students’ aggression. Educational Researcher, 40, 281–286.Google Scholar
Pervin, L. A., & John, O. P. (1997). Personality: Theory and research (7th ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Preuschoft, S. (1992). "Laughter" and "smile" in Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus). Ethology, 91, 200–236.Google Scholar
Preuschoft, S., & van Hooff, J. A. R. A. M. (1995). Homologizing primate facial displays: A critical review of methods. Folia Primatologica, 65, 121–137.Google Scholar
Prigogine, I. (1996): The end of certainty. Time, chaos, and the new laws of nature. New York: The Free Press.
Ramón y Cajal, S. F. (1897/1999). Advice for a young investigator. [Translation by Neely Swanson and Larry W. Swanson. Original Reglas y consejos sobre investigación cientifica: los tónicos de la voluntad]. MIT Press.
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, no, 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.Google Scholar
Riegel, K. F. (1979). Foundations of dialectical psychology. New York: Adacemic Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, C. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationships as developed in the client-centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A Study of a Science. Vol. 3: Formulations of the Person and the Social Context. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Rosenhan, D. L. (1973). On being sane in insane places. Science, 179, 250–258.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google 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.Google Scholar
Rotter, J. B. (1981). The psychological situation in social learning theory. In D. Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a psychology of situations: An interactional perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Royce, J. (1891). The religious aspect of philosophy: A critique of the bases of conduct and of faith. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1927). An outline of philosophy. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Saint-Mont, U. (2012). What measurement is all about. Theory & Psychology, 22, 467–485.Google 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
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.
Schacter, D. (1999). The seven sins of memory: Insights from psychology and cognitive neuroscience. American Psychologist, 54, 182–203.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Schacter, D. L., & Addis, D. R. (2007). Constructive memory: Ghosts of past and future. Nature, 445, 27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Schonhardt-Bailey, C., Yager, E., & Lahlou, S. (2012). Yes, Ronald Reagan’s rhetoric was unique—but statistically, how unique? Presidential Studies Quarterly, 42, 482–513.Google Scholar
Schrödinger, E. (1958). Mind and matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schwarz, M. (2014). The living fossil of human judgment. The living fossil of human judgment. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 48, 211–237.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Wright, J. C. (1994). Intra-individual stability in the organization and patterning of behavior: Incorporating psychological situations into the idiographic analysis of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 674–687.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Shotter, J. (1975). Images of man in psychological research. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
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
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Sprung, L., & Sprung, H. (1984). Grundlagen der Methodologie und Methodik der Psychologie. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Stent, G. S. (1969). The coming of the Golden Age: A view of the end of progress. The American Museum of Natural History, Garden City: The Natural History Press
Stern, W. (1924). Wertphilosophie (Person und Sache. System des kritischen Personalismus. Dritter Band). Leipzig: Barth.Google Scholar
Tellegen, A. (1993). Folk concepts and psychological concepts of personality and personality disorder. Psychological Inquiry, 4, 122–130.Google Scholar
Teo, T., & Febbraro, A. (2003). Ethnocentrism as a form of intuition in psychology. Theory and Psychology, 13, 673–694.Google Scholar
Toomela, A. (2008). Variables in psychology: A critique of quantitative psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 42, 245–265.PubMedGoogle 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Toomela, A. (2012). Guesses on the future of cultural psychology: Past, present, and past. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), Oxford handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 998–1033). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Toomela, A., & Valsiner, J. (Eds.). (2010). Methodological thinking in psychology: 60 years gone astray? Charlotte: Information Age Publishers.Google Scholar
Trendler, G. (2009). Measurement theory, psychology and the revolution that cannot happen. Theory & Psychology, 19, 579–599.
Uher, J. (2009). Comparative research on personality in Animalia and Plantae. PhD-Dissertation. Berlin: Freie Universität.Google Scholar
Uher, J. (2011a). Individual behavioral phenotypes: An integrative meta-theoretical framework. Why 'behavioral syndromes' are not analogues of 'personality'. Developmental Psychobiology, 53, 521–548.PubMedGoogle 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.Google 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.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle 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., 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.Google Scholar
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.Google 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.Google Scholar
Vallacher, R., & Nowak, A. (1994). Dynamical systems in social psychology. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
Valsiner, J. (1987). Culture and the development of children’s actions: A cultural–historical theory of developmental psychology. New York: John 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
Valsiner, J., & Han, G. (2008). Where is culture within the dialogical perspectives on the self? International Journal for Dialogical Science, 3, 1–8.Google Scholar
Valsiner, J., Molenaar, P., Chaudhary, N., & Lyra, M. (2009). Handbook of dynamic process methodology in the social and developmental sciences (Eds.). New York: Springer.Google 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.Google Scholar
von Bertalanffy, L. (1937). Das Gefüge des Lebens. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
von Bertalanffy, L. (1949/1990). Das biologische Weltbild. Wien-Köln: Böhlau Verlag.
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, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L., & Luria, A. (1930/1994). Tool and symbol in child development. Reprinted in R. van der Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 99–174). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
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.Google Scholar
Walach, H. (2013) Psychologie. Wissenschaftstheorie, philosophische Grundlagen und Geschichte. Ein Lehrbuch. (3., überarb. Auflage). Unter Mitarbeit von N. v. Stillfried. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Wallaczek, J. (Ed.). (2000). Self-organized biological dynamics and nonlinear control. Toward understanding complexity, chaos and emergent function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158–177.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1904). Die „Objektivität“ sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis. Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, 19, 22–87.
Weber, M. (1930). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism [Translated by Talcott Parson]. London: George Allan & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (H. H. Gerth & C. W. Mills, Eds.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1949). The methodology of the social sciences [Translated and edited by E.A. Shils and H.A. Finch]. New York: Free Press.Google 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.Google Scholar
Whitehead, A. N. (1929). Process and reality. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Whorf, B. L. (1958). Language and stereotypes. In: E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.). Readings in Social Psychology (3rd edn.) (pp. 1-9). New York: Holt.
Wolpert, L. (1992). The unnatural nature of science. London: Faber.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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Wright, 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Wundt, W. (1863). Vorlesungen über die Menschen- und Thierseele. Hamburg: Voss.Google Scholar
Wundt, W. (1866). Die physikalischen Axiome und ihre Beziehung zum Causalprincip. Einer Capitel aus einer Philosophie der Naturwissenschaften. Erlangen: Enke.Google Scholar
Wundt, W. (1888). Selbstbeobachtung und innere Wahrnehmung. Philosophische Studien, 4, 292–309.Google Scholar
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: Allen.Google Scholar
Wundt, W. (1913). Die Psychologie im Kampf ums Dasein. Leipzig: Kröner Verlag. http://www.philosophiebuch.de/wundtpsy.htm retrieved: 26/07/2014
Wundt, W. (1919). Logik. Eine Untersuchung der Prinzipien der Erkenntnis und der Methoden Wissenschaftlicher Forschung. Band 1. Allgemeine Logik und Erkenntnistheorie (4. Aufl.). Stuttgart: Enke.Google Scholar
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
Yerkes, R. M. (1939). The life history and personality of the chimpanzee. American Naturalist, 73, 97–112.Google Scholar

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Jana Uher
- 1
- 2
Email author

1.Department of PsychologyLondon School of Economics and Political ScienceLondonUK
2.Comparative Differential and Personality PsychologyFree University BerlinBerlinGermany

Conceiving “personality”: Psychologist’s challenges and basic fundamentals of the Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals

Abstract

Keywords

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Cookies