Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences

Living Edition
| Editors: Virgil Zeigler-Hill, Todd K. Shackelford

Nomothetic Study of Personality

  • Khairul Anwar MastorEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_477-1

Synonyms

Definitions

Nomothetic is derived from a Greek word “nomos” or law or general law. Thus, nomothetic study of personality is an approach to establish general principles or law about human personal attributes and characteristics which, through many and acceptable research work, lead to the formation of a theory.

Introduction

During early period of studies on human personality, the focus was on understanding the nature and characteristics of people – with the assumption that people seem to possess personality basic templates or traits that are common, shared, and universal among different cultures globally. Nomothetic approach was introduced by Allport in 1937 to identify general pattern of personality across different groups of individuals. The approach is more of quantitative in nature because in order to explore universal law of personality, the method should be valid, reliable, and replicable. Statistics were used as the major...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & de Vries, R. E. (2014). The HEXACO honesty-humility, agreeableness, and emotionality factors: A review of research and theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 139–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beltz, A. M., Wright, A. G. C., Sprague, B. N., & Molenaar, P. C. M. (2016). Bridging the nomothetic and idiographic approaches to the analysis of clinical data. Assessment, 23(4), 447–458.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116648209.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Boudreaux, M. J. (2016). Personality-related problems and the five-factor model of personality. Personal Disorder, 7(4), 372–383.  https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carducci, B. J. (2009). The psychology of personality: Viewpoints, research and applications. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Cone, J. D. (1986). Idiographic, nomothetic, and related perspectives in behavioral assessment. In R. O. Nelson & S. C. Hayes (Eds.), Conceptual foundations of behavioral assessment (pp. 111–128). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  6. Grice, J. W. (2007). Person-Centered structural analyses. In F. Robins & Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 557–572). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  7. Kenrick, D. T., & Braver, S. L. (1982). Personality: Idiographic and nomothetic: A rejoinder. Psychological Review, 89(2), 182–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kline, P. (2013). Handbook of psychological testing. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Martin, J. (2005). Organisational behaviour and management. London: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  10. McAdams, D. P. (2015). The art and science of personality development. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  11. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (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 Press.Google Scholar
  12. McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. (2005). Personality profiles of cultures: Aggregate personality traits. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 89(3), 407–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McCrae, R. R., Chan, W., Jussim, L., De Fruyt, F., Lockenhoff, C. E., De Bolle, M., Costa, P. T., Jr., Graf, S., Realo, A., Mastor, K. A., …, Terracciano, A. (2013). The inaccuracy of national character stereotypes. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(6), 831–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McKenna, E. F. (2000). Business psychology and organisational behaviour: A student’s handbook. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  15. Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1998). Five reasons why the “big five” article has been frequently cited. Personnel Psychology, 51(4), 849–857.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1998.tb00743.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Roberts, B., Kuncel, N., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 313–345.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Saucier, G., Kenner, J., Iurino, K. M., Philippe, B., Chen, Z., Thalmayer, A. G., Kemmelmeier, M., Tov, W., Boutti, R., Metaferia, H., Cankaya, B., Mastor, K. A., Hsu, K. Y., Wu, R., & Maniruzzaman, M. (2015). Cross-cultural differences in a global survey of world views. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46, 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Terracciano, A., Abdel-Khalek, A. M., Ádám, N., Adamovová, L., Ahn, C.-k., Ahn, H.-n., … McCrae, R. R. (2005). National character does not reflect mean personality trait levels in 49 cultures. Science, 310(5745), 96–100.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1117199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Weiner, I. B., & Greene, R. L. (2017). Handbook of personality assessment (2nd ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universiti Kebangsaan MalaysiaBangiMalaysia

Section editors and affiliations

  • Anna Czarna
    • 1
  1. 1.Jagiellonian UniversityKrakowPoland