Psychological Methodology will Change Profoundly Due to the Necessity to Focus on Intra-individual Variation

Commentaries
First Online:

Abstract

I am in general agreement with Toomela’s (Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science doi:10.1007/s12124-007-9004-0, 2007) plea for an alternative psychological methodology inspired by his description of the German–Austrian orientation. I will argue, however, that this alternative methodology has to be based on the classical ergodic theorems, using state-of-the-art statistical time series analysis of intra-individual variation as its main tool. Some more specific points made by Toomela will be criticized, while for others a more extreme elaboration along the lines indicated by Toomela is proposed.

Keywords

Ergodicity Intra-individual variation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Anderson, R. L. (2005). Neo-Kantianism and the roots of anti-psychologism. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 13, 287–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banks, E. C. (2003). Ernst Mach’s world elements: A study in natural philosophy. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  3. Bartholomew, D. J. (1987). Latent variable models and factor analysis. London: Charles Griffin.Google Scholar
  4. Hamaker, E. L., Dolan, C. V., & Molenaar, P. C. M. (2005). Statistical modeling of the individual: Rationale and application of multivariate stationary time series analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 207–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Heidelberger, M. (1993). Die innere Seite der Natur: G.T. Fechner’s wissenschaftliche–philosophische Weltauffassung. Frankfurt a. M.: Vittorio Klostermann.Google Scholar
  6. Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. J. (2005). Evolution in four dimensions: Genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic variation in the history of life. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.Google Scholar
  7. Jacquette, D. (Ed.) (2003). Philosophy, psychology, and psychologism: Critical and historical readings on the psychological turn in philosophy. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Kaiser-El-Safti, M. (2001). Die Idee der wissenschaftlichen Psychologie: Immanuel Kants kritische Einwände und ihre konstruktive Widerlegung. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar
  9. Kelderman, H., & Molenaar, P. C. M. (2006). The effect of individual differences in factor loadings on the standard factor model (to appear in Multivariate Behavioral Research).Google Scholar
  10. Kusch, M. (1995). Psychologism: A case study in the sociology of philosophical knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Molenaar, P. C. M., & von Eye, A. (1994). On the arbitrary nature of latent variables. In A. von Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Analysis of latent variables in developmental research (pp. 226–242). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Molenaar, P. C. M., Huizenga, H. M., & Nesselroade, J. R. (2003). The relationship between the structure of interindividual and intraindividual variability: A theoretical and empirical vindication of Developmental Systems Theory. In U. M. Staudinger & U. Lindenberger (Eds.), Understanding human development: Dialogues with lifespan psychology (pp. 339–360). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Molenaar, P. C. M. (2004). A manifesto on Psychology as idiographic science: Bringing the person back into scientific psychology, this time forever. Measurement, 2, 201–218.Google Scholar
  14. Toomela, A. (2007). Culture of science: Strange history of the methodological thinking in psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, doi:10.1007/s12124-007-9004-0.
  15. von Eye, A. (2004). The treasures of Pandora’s box. Measurement, 2, 24–247.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science & Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations