Abstract
In two commentaries, Kostromina and Grishina (2018) and Mironenko (2018) offered constructive thoughts and questions in response to an article by Giordano (2018, Culture & Psychology, 23, 502–518) on the merits of an approach to understanding individual personality that focuses on the processes rather than structures of personality. In this reply, the authors seek to clarify some of the points made in the original article. The authors also describe a personality process-structure duality, whereby personality is conceptualized in terms of processes or structures based on the methods used to study it. If the goal is to understand the dynamic and emergent properties of individual personality, the authors continue to argue for the merits of a process-centric approach and the avoidance of structural thinking.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allport, G. W. (1938). Personality: A problem for science or a problem for art? Revista de Psihologie, 1, 1–15.
Allport, G. W. (1955). Becoming: Basic considerations for a psychology of personality. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Bamberg, M. (2011). Who am I? Narration and its contribution to self and identity. Theory & Psychology, 21, 3–24.
Block, J. (2010). The five-factor framing of personality and beyond: Some ruminations. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 2–25.
Cooley, C. H. (1998). On self and social organization (edited and with an introduction by H. Schubert). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Coser, L. A. (1971). Masters of sociological thought (2nd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Dewey, J. (1922). Human nature and conduct. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Eddington, A. (1939). The philosophy of physical science. New York: Macmillan.
Fajkowska, M., & Kreitler, S. (2018). Status of the trait concept in contemporary personality psychology: Are the old questions still the burning questions? Journal of Personality, 86, 5–11.
Giordano, P. J. (2014). Personality as continuous stochastic process: What western personality theory can learn from classical Confucianism. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 48, 111–128.
Giordano, P. J. (2015). Being or becoming: Toward an open-system, process-centric model of personality. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49, 757–771.
Giordano, P. J. (2017). Individual personality is best understood as process, not structure: A Confucian-inspired perspective. Culture & Psychology, 23, 502–518.
Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: Norton.
James, W. (1890/1948). Psychology. Cleveland: Fine Editions Press.
Kostromina, S. N., & Grishina, N. V. (2018). The future of personality theory: A processual approach. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 52, 296–306.
Maclean, N. (1992). Young men and fire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Religions, values, and peak experiences. New York: Penguin.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr., P. T. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical contexts for the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 51–87). New York: Guilford.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr., P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509–516.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr., P. T. (2008). The five-factor theory of personality. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 159–181). New York: Guilford.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mironenko, I. A. (2017). Concerning the importance of ontological issues for cultural psychology: A reply to comments. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 51, 496–504.
Mironenko, I. A. (2018). Personality as a social process: Where Peter Giordano meets Boris Parygin. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 52, 288–295.
Molenaar, P. C. M. (2004). A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: Bringing the person back into scientific psychology, this time forever. Measurement, 2(4), 201–218.
Molenaar, P. C. M. (2016). Person-oriented and subject-specific methodology: Some additional remarks. Journal of Person-Oriented Research, 2, 16–19.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: The Free Press.
Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Vintage Books.
Uher, J. (2015a). Conceiving “personality”: Psychologists’ challenges and basic fundamentals of the Transdisciplinary philosophy-of-science paradigm for research on individuals. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49, 398–458.
Uher, J. (2015b). Interpreting ‘personality’ taxonomies: Why previous models cannot capture individual-specific experiencing, behavior, functioning and development. Major taxonomic tasks still lay ahead. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49, 650–655.
Valsiner, J. (2009). Integrating psychology within the globalizing world: A requiem to the post-modernist experiment with Wissenschaft. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 43, 1–21.
Acknowledgements
We thank Svetlana Kostromina, Natalia Grishina, and Irina Mironenko for their insightful commentary. We also thank Jaan Valsiner for the opportunity to construct a reply.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical Approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Giordano, P.J., Taylor, J. & Branthwaite, H.E. Personality Process-Structure Duality: Reply to Two Commentaries. Integr. psych. behav. 52, 686–693 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-018-9455-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-018-9455-5