Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science

, Volume 49, Issue 4, pp 600–655 | Cite as

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

  • Jana Uher
Regular Article


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”.


Personality functioning and development Phenomenon-methodology matching Between-individual and within-individual differences Scientific quantification Nomothetic and ideographic approaches Standardised questionnaire methods Traits Big Five Model and Five Factor Model Compositional structures and process structures Personality model and taxonomy 



I am grateful to the editor Jaan Valsiner for the invitation to write this trilogy and I also thank him, Jochen Fahrenberg and six anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on a previous draft. The views expressed herein are mine and should not be attributed to any of the persons who provided commentaries. I gratefully acknowledge support from a research grant from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG (Grant Number UH249/1-1).


  1. Abbey, E., & Diriwächter, R. (Eds.). (2008). Innovating genesis: microgenesis and the constructive mind in action. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. Ader, R. (2006) Psychoneuroimmunology. Volume 1 (4th ed.). China: Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Allport, G. W. (1931). What is a trait of personality? Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 25, 368–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Allport, G. W. (1966). Traits revisited. American Psychologist, 21, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait names: a psycholexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Allport, G. W., & Vernon, P. E. (1933). Studies in expressive movement. New York: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. APA, American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  10. Arro, G. (2013). Peeking into personality test answers: Inter- and intraindividual variety in item interpretations. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 47, 56–76.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Baldwin, J. M. (1896). A new factor in evolution. The American Naturalist, 30, 441–451, 536–553.Google Scholar
  13. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  14. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Bauer, M. & Gaskell, G. (Eds). (2000). Qualitative researching with text, image and sound. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Block, J. (2010). The five-factor framing of personality and beyond: Some ruminations. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 2–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bohr, N. (1937). Causality and complementarity. Philosophy and Science, 4, 289–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Boring, E. G. (1953). A history of introspection. Psychological Bulletin, 50, 169–189.Google Scholar
  21. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Brower, D. (1949). The problem of quantification of psychological science. Psychological Review, 56, 325–331.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Bühler, K. (1907). Tatsachen und Probleme zu einer Psychologie der Denkvorgänge I. Über Gedanken. Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie, 9, 297–365.Google Scholar
  24. Buss, D. M. (2009). How can evolutionary psychology successfully explain personality and individual differences? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 359–366.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Butler, J. (2013). Rethinking introspection. A pluralist approach to the first-person perspective. Houndmills, Basingstroke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  26. Caprara, F. (1996). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  27. Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality II. Basic traits resolved into clusters. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38, 476–507.Google Scholar
  28. Cattell, R. B. (1965). The scientific analysis of personality. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Collingwood, R. G. (1940). An essay on metaphysics. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  31. 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.Google Scholar
  32. Danziger, K. (1997). Naming the mind: How psychology found its language. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. 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
  34. 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.Google Scholar
  35. 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.Google Scholar
  36. Eysenck, H. J. (1947). Dimensions of personality. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  37. Eysenck, H. J. (1952). The scientific study of psychology. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Fahrenberg, J. (1979). Das Komplementaritätsprinzip in der psychophysiologischen Forschung und psychosomatischen Medizin. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 27, 151–167.Google Scholar
  40. 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.Google Scholar
  41. Fahrenberg, J. (2004). Annahmen über den Menschen. Menschenbilder aus psychologischer, biologischer, religiöser und interkultureller Sicht. Heidelberg-Kröning: Asanger-Verlag.Google Scholar
  42. 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: Scholar
  43. Fahrenberg, J. (2013). Zur Kategorienlehre der Psychologie. Komplementaritätsprinzip. Perspektiven und Perspektiven-Wechsel. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. Faßnacht, G. (1982). Theory and practice of observing behaviour (2nd ed.). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  47. 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.Google Scholar
  48. Flick, U. (2008). Managing quality in qualitative research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Freud, S. (1915). The unconscious. Standard Edition, 14, 159–214.Google Scholar
  50. 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
  51. 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.Google Scholar
  52. Gödel, K. (1931). Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 38, 173–198.Google Scholar
  53. 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
  54. 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.Google Scholar
  55. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": the Big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Guilford, J. P. (1959). Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  57. Hartmann, N. (1964). Der Aufbau der realen Welt. Grundriss der allgemeinen Kategorienlehre. (3. Aufl.). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  58. Heisenberg, W. (1927). Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. Zeitschrift für Physik, 43, 172–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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.Google Scholar
  60. 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
  61. Hofsteede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  62. 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
  63. James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Holt.Google Scholar
  64. 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.Google Scholar
  65. 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.Google Scholar
  66. Kant, I. (1781/1998). Kritik der reinen Vernunft (Hrsg. J. Timmermann). Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.Google Scholar
  67. 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
  68. Kant, I. (1798/2000). Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht (Hrsg. R. Brandt). Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.Google Scholar
  69. Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs (Vol. 1 and 2). New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  70. 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
  71. Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt Psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.Google Scholar
  72. Köhler, W. (1969). The task of Gestalt Psychology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Komatsu, K. (2012). Temporal reticence of the self: who can know myself? Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 46, 357–372.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Køppe, S. (2012). A moderate eclecticism: ontological and epistemological issues. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 46, 1–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Lahlou, S. (1996). Propagation of social representations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 26, 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Lahlou, S. (1998). Penser-manger. Paris: Les Presses Universitaires de France.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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.Google Scholar
  78. 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
  79. Lahlou, S., Nosulenko, V., & Samoylenko, E. (2009). SUBCAM technology as an instrument in psychological science. Experimental Psychology, 1, 72–80.Google Scholar
  80. Lamiell, J. T. (1998). ‘Nomothetic’ and ‘Idiographic’: Contrasting Windelband’s understanding with contemporary usage. Theory and Psychology, 8, 23–38.Google Scholar
  81. 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
  82. Larocco, S. (2014). Ideology, affect, semiotics: Towards a non-personal theory of personality. Integrated Psychological and Behavioral Science, 48, 129–142.Google Scholar
  83. Laucken, U. (1974). Naive Verhaltenstheorie. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
  84. 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
  85. Le Poidevin, R. (2011). The experience and perception of time. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition). Retrieved 14 Mar 2014
  86. Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  87. Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  88. 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
  89. Locke, J. (1689). Essay concerning human understanding. Book I. The Project Gutenberg EBook #10615. Retrieved 08 Sep 2013
  90. Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Genes and environment in personality development. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  91. Luisi, P. L. (2003). Autopoiesis: a review and a reappraisal. Naturwissenschaften, 90, 49–59.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Matthews, G., Deary, I. J., & Whiteman, M. C. (2003). Personality traits (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 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
  94. Mayr, E. (1988). Toward a new philosophy of biology: Observations of an evolutionist. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  95. McAdams, D. P. (1992). The five-factor model in personality: A critical appraisal. Journal of Personality, 60, 329–361.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. McCrae, R. R. (2011). Personality theories for the 21st century. Teaching of Psychology, 38, 209–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509–516.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Mehl, M. R., & Conner, T. S. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of research methods for studying daily life. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  99. Millikan, R. (1993). White queen psychology and other essays for Alice. Bradford: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  100. Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  101. Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1994). Personality psychology has two goals: Must it be two fields? Psychological Inquiry, 5, 156–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Mischel, W. & Shoda, Y. (1998). Reconciling processing dynamics and personality dispositions. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 229–258.Google Scholar
  103. Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Ayduk, O. (2007). Personality (8th ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  104. 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
  105. 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
  106. Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical Review, 83, 435–450.Google Scholar
  107. 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
  108. Neuman, Y. (2014). Introduction to computational cultural psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  109. 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 Scholar
  110. Ogden, C. K. (1932). Bentham's theory of fictions. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  111. 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
  112. Pauli, R. (1927). Einführung in die experimentelle Psychologie. Leipzig: Quelle und Meyer.Google Scholar
  113. 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.Google Scholar
  114. 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.Google Scholar
  115. Pervin, L. A. & John, O. P. (1997). Personality: theory and research (7th ed). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  116. Popper, K. R. (1934). Logik der Forschung. Wien: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  117. Prigogine, I. (1996). The end of certainty. Time, chaos, and the new laws of nature. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  118. Richards, J. M. (1990). Units of analysis and the individual difference fallacy in environmental assessment. Environment & Behaviour, 22, 307–319.Google Scholar
  119. 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
  120. Rothschuh, K. E. (1963). Theorie des Organsimus. Bios – Psyche – Pathos (2. erw. Aufl.). München: Urban & Schwarzenberg.Google Scholar
  121. Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  122. Royce, J. (1891). The religious aspect of philosophy: a critique of the bases of conduct and of faith. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin.Google Scholar
  123. Rychlak, J. F. (1968). A philosophy of science for personality theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 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
  125. 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
  126. Sameroff, A. (2010). A unified theory of development: a dialectic integration of nature and nurture. Child Development, 81, 6–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 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
  128. 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
  129. Schacter, D. (1999). The seven sins of memory: Insights from psychology and cognitive neuroscience. American Psychologist, 54, 182–203.Google Scholar
  130. Schacter, D. L. & Addis, D. R. (2007). Constructive memory: Ghosts of past and future. Nature, 445, 27.Google Scholar
  131. Shotter. J. (1975). Images of man in psychological research. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  132. 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
  133. Stern, W. (1911). Die Differentielle Psychologie in ihren methodischen Grundlagen. Leipzig: Barth.Google Scholar
  134. Stern, W. (1918). Grundgedanken der personalistischen Philosophie. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard.Google Scholar
  135. Stern, W. (1924). Wertphilosophie (Person und Sache. System des kritischen Personalismus. Dritter Band). Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth.Google Scholar
  136. Stern, W. (1935). Allgemeine Psychologie auf personalistischer Grundlage. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Tellegen, A. (1993). Folk concepts and psychological concepts of personality and personality disorder. Psychological Inquiry, 4, 122–130.Google Scholar
  138. 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
  139. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1993). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  140. Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Individuality. New York: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  141. 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
  142. 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
  143. 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
  144. 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.Google Scholar
  145. 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
  146. 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
  147. 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
  148. 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.
  149. 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.
  150. 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.
  151. 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.
  152. 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
  153. 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
  154. Valsiner, J. (1987). Culture and the development of children’s actions: A cultural–historical theory of developmental psychology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  155. Valsiner, J. (1998). The guided mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  156. Valsiner, J. (2000). Culture and human development. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  157. Valsiner, J. (2012). A guided science: History of psychology in the mirror of its making. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  158. 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
  159. 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
  160. Vedhara, K. & Irwin, M. (2005). Human psychoneuroimmunology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  161. von Bertalanffy, L. (1937). Das Gefüge des Lebens. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
  162. von Bertalanffy, L. (1973). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York: George Braziller.Google Scholar
  163. von Uexküll, J. (1909). Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  164. Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Wagner, W. (1994). The fallacy of misplaced intentionality in social representation research. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 24, 243–266.Google Scholar
  166. 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
  167. Walach, H. (2013) Psychologie. Wissenschaftstheorie, philosophische Grundlagen und Geschichte. Ein Lehrbuch. (3., überarb. Auflage). Unter Mitarbeit von N. v. Stillfried. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
  168. Watson, J. D., & Crick, F. H. C. (1953). A structure for deoxyribose mucleic acid. Nature, 171, 737–738.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. 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
  170. Westen, D. (1999). The scientific status of unconscious processes: Is Freud really dead? Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 47, 1061–1106.Google Scholar
  171. Whitehead, A. N. (1929a). Process and reality. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  172. Whitehead, A. N. (1929b). The function of reason (Chapter 2, pp. 37–61). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  173. 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
  174. 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
  175. WHO, World Health Organisation. (2010). International statistical classifcation of diseases and related health problems (10th revision). Malta: WHO.Google Scholar
  176. Wundt, W. (1863). Vorlesungen über die Menschen- und Thierseele. Hamburg: Voss.Google Scholar
  177. Wundt, W. (1894). Über psychische Kausalität und das Prinzip des psycho-physischen Parallelismus. Philosophische Studien, 10, 1–124.Google Scholar
  178. Wundt, W. (1896). Grundriss der Psychologie. Stuttgart: Körner. Online at Scholar
  179. Wundt, W. (1904). Principles of physiological psychology. London, UK: Allen.Google Scholar
  180. 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
  181. 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
  182. Zuckerman, M. (1991). Psychobiology of personality. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations