a tripartite model of idiographic research

8/3/2019 A Tripartite Model of IdiogrAphic ReseArch

1/19

A TripArTiTe Model of idiogrAphic reseArch:progressing pAsT The concepT of idiogrAphic

reseArch As A singulAr enTiTy

Stephen KrauSS

University of Illinois at Chicago, IL, USA

This paper is an attempt to bring clarity to idiographic theory and research in psychologyby delineating 3 different types of idiographic research: research not assuming general

laws, unique manifestation research, and intraindividual research. These 3 research types

use different methods, make different assumptions, and have different relationships to

the nomothetic mainstream. The relatively harmonious relationships between unique

manifestation research, intraindividual research, and the nomothetic mainstream suggest

that these research lines will form an essential part of 21st century psychology, whereas the

original conception of idiographic research as research that does not assume general laws

will continue slowly to die out. These conceptual advances imply that the single debate over

nomothetic-idiographic research should be closed.

Keywords: idiographic research, personality, research methods, nomothetic research.

Investigators have debated the relative merits of idiographic and nomothetic

research strategies for at least 80 years, with numerous calls (e.g., Allport, 1937;

Bem & Allen, 1974; Molenaar, 2004; Pervin, 1996; Runyan, 1983) for increased

amounts of idiographic research. However, idiographic research has become only

slightly more prevalent in the literature over the years (Lamiell, 2003; Molenaar,

2004). In other words, despite the arguments of many respected researchers for

increased amounts of idiographic research, idiographic research has not thrived

as expected.

SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2008, 36(8), 1123-1140

Society for Personality Research (Inc.)

Stephen Krauss, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.

Appreciation is due to reviewers including: Oliver Ldtke, Centre for Educational Research, Max

Planck Institute for Human Development, Lentzeallee 94, Berlin, Germany 14195, Email: luedtke@

mpib-berlin.mpg.de

Please address correspondence and reprint requests to: Stephen Krauss, Department of Psychology,

University of Illinois at Chicago, Behavioral Sciences Building, MC 285, 1007 West Harrison

Street, Chicago, IL60607-7137, USA. Phone: +1 708 524 0773; Email: stephenkrauss@hotmail.

com


2/19

PROGRESSING PAST IDIOGRAPHIC RESEARCH1124

One of the reasons idiographic research may have failed to thrive is that the

idiographic-nomothetic debate was not so much a true debate as a discussion

of a series of slightly related issues. For example, at different times, the debate

over idiographic research concerned: the comprehensiveness and usefulness of

personality traits (e.g., Allport, 1937), personal uniqueness (e.g., Allport, 1937,

1962; Higgins, 1990), quantitative versus qualitative research methods (e.g.,

Allport, 1961; Meehl, 1954), psychology as a science versus a nonscience (e.g.,

Eysenck, 1954; Holt, 1962; Nunnally, 1967), and the study of individuals versus

the study of groups (e.g., Allport, 1962; Cloninger, 1996; Lamiell, 1987, 2003).

Reflecting this confusion, Walter Mischel (1983) stated that a clarification of

idiographic goals . . . remains one of personologys most enduring needs (p.

591). In other words, the debate over the value of idiographic research was

disorganized, which may have contributed to the slow growth of the field.A significant factor contributing to this disorganization was uncertainty as

to what idiographic means. Though not previously made explicit, there are

three qualitatively different meanings of the term idiographic within the fields

contemporary discourse. Making these alternative meanings explicit may help

to resolve and eliminate unnecessary debate and thereby focus investigators

attention more clearly on the distinct substantive scientific questions that require

idiographic methods of research. Once these alternative meanings are made

explicit, researchers will be better able to avoid talking past one another, which

would greatly improve communication in the field. In addition, once thesealternative meanings are made explicit, researchers will be able to evaluate more

precisely which idiographic methods may be of most use in their specific area

of interest. Therefore, the main goal of this paper was to present three different

meanings of the term idiographic that are currently used in the literature.

Issues of definition in science are very important. For example, Borsboom,

Mellenbergh, and Van Heerden (2004) have argued that changes in the definition

of the term validity have done much to hinder the growth of validity research.

This is because validity research has not focused on testing the core concept of

validity, measuring what one intends to measure, and instead has often dealt withnewly proposed facets of validity, such as whether interpretations based on test

scores are justified. Similarly, it is important to recognize that there are three

different definitions of idiographic, because evidence and research showing the

value of one definition does not necessarily indicate the same thing for the other

definitions.

This paper first briefly reviews the history of the idiographic-nomothetic

debate. Next, three different types of idiographic research are distinguished and

the implications for the field are discussed.


3/19

PROGRESSING PAST IDIOGRAPHIC RESEARCH 1125

hisToricAl Beginnings

Historically, Gordon Allport (1937) was the first to use the terms idiographic

and nomothetic in English psychological literature. Allport borrowed these

terms from the writings of the German philosopher Wilhelm Windelband (1894-

1998).

For Allport (1937, 1962) and Windelband (Lamiell, 1998), nomothetic

knowledge is knowledge of general laws, such as those gained from the natural

sciences. In short, nomothetic knowledge for Windelband is knowledge about

what is true for each and every human or collective, just as the law of gravity

covers each and every entity with mass.

For Allport (1937, 1962) and Windelband (Lamiell, 1998), idiographic

knowledge is knowledge about unique events, entities, and trends. In short,Windelband believed that a lack of universal generalizability in a research domain

always signifies the domain is idiographic, regardless of the unit of analysis.

Allport (1937, 1962) was much more interested in examining the psychological

laws governing the behavior of single individuals than with the study of unique

populations, such as is the focus of cultural psychology. Therefore, Allport

typically used the term idiographic to refer to the study of individuals, and

the term nomothetic to refer to the study of populations and groups. However,

Allport, like generations of researchers after him, did not always define these

terms in a consistent manner.

diversiTy And confusion in The field

The meaning ofidiographic is conceived in such diverse ways that a vast array

of techniques are needed to suit each conception. This means that idiographic

studies frequently bear little exterior resemblance to each other. Perhaps

describing three prototypical idiographic studies would help illustrate the

diversity of conceptualizations that are present in modern psychology.

ExamplE 1

The first example (Bem & Allen, 1974) is a classic study on the cross-situational

consistency of behavior. In this self-described idiographic study, Bem and Allen

collected self-rated friendliness trait ratings and also self-rated variability in

how friendly the participants were across situations. The main finding was that

friendliness trait ratings predicted friendly behaviors, but this relationship was

moderated by self-rated variability.

ExamplE 2

The second example (Higgins 1987) is a classic program of research on the


4/19


impact of perceived discrepancies between the actual qualities of the self, the

ideal self, and the qualities the self ought to have. The presence of the three

different self-conceptions and the effects of discrepancies among them are

hypothesized to be the same in all people. However, the specific attributes that

form the actual, ideal, and ought selves are measured by having participants

freely list the attributes contained in each of three self-concepts. This means that

the content of the three self-concepts is different for each individual.

ExamplE 3

The third example (Simonton, 1998) is a prototypical, quantitative, psycho-

historical study. In this study, Simonton examined how global stress affected the

physical and mental health of King George III during his life. The main finding

of the study was that King Georges health typically declined about nine monthsafter global stress had increased.

Besides the fact that the researchers in all three examples described their studies

as idiographic, is there a common thread linking all three prototypical studies?

Example 2 used individualized measures, while the two other examples did not.

Example 3 was longitudinal and a case study, whereas the two other examples

were cross-sectional and used large samples. Examples 1 and 2 attempted to

reveal processes that generalize to the population at large, whereas Example

3 did not. Examples 2 and 3 used empirical methodologies that explicitly

treated the participants as unique in some way, whereas Example 1 did not. Allthree examples hypothesized that the concepts of interest were present in each

participant, were at least somewhat contextually sensitive, and used quantitative

methods. However, these qualities are also shared with mainstream nomothetic

research. In short, these three fairly prototypical, self-described idiographic

studies do not appear to have much in common beyond commonalities with

mainstream nomothetic research.

The goal of this paper was to show that these three studies are prototypical

studies that operationalize three different definitions of the term idiographic.

Example 1 (Bem & Allen, 1974) is a study that used the term idiographic in itsoriginal historical sense (Allport, 1937, 1962; Lamiell, 1998), that is, research

that does not assume general laws. In other words, idiographic research using

this definition specifies that it is only valid for some groups, some individuals,

in some situations as opposed to the classic conception of nomothetic research as

finding principles that are true in all groups, all people, and all situations.

Example 2 (Higgins, 1987) is a research program in which idiographic

was defined as research where there is a unique manifestation of a general

phenomenon. What makes Higginss research idiographic by this definition is

that the general phenomena of actual, ideal and ought self-perceptions all have

unique content that depends on the persons life and experiences In other words


5/19


although everyone is thought to have actual, ideal, and ought self-perceptions,

people do not have the same actual, ideal, and ought self-perceptions. Research

using this definition of idiographic therefore captures individual uniqueness in

ways that do not violate any but the strictest conceptions of a general law.

Example 3 (Simonton, 1998) was the psychohistorical examination of the

impact of stress on King Georges health across time. This research was an

example of idiographic research as intraindividual or longitudinal research.

In other words, for some theorists (e.g., Cervone, 2005; Molenaar, 2004),

idiographic research is research that examines a person (such as in Example 3)

or a group of people across time.

IdIographIc rEsEarchasa VIolatIonof UnIVErsal homogEnEIty

The traditional goal of pure nomothetic research was the goal of general laws. Inpsychology, the goal of formulating general laws was to find laws and principles

that were common to: most preferably, a) each and every member of the animal

kingdom; next best was b) each and every human being; or at the very least, c)

each and every member of large sections of humanity, such as for men or women

(Allport, 1937; Bem, 1983; Bem & Allen, 1974; Lamiell, 2003). However, the

goal of identifying general laws has been translated by modern psychology into

the goal of finding principles that are true in a population (Lamiell, 2003).

In nomothetic research, each member of a group is treated as a perfect exemplar

of the group as a whole. For example, in nomothetic research all males areequally good representations of men, all Asians are equally good representations

of Asians, and all people who received a 4 out of 5 on an extraversion scale are

equally good representations of the group of people who receive a 4 out of 5 on an

extraversion scale. To this end, nomothetic research assumes that the categories

are applied identically to all participants in a study. For example, nomothetic

research assumes that each person determines whether he or she is an Asian

in an identical manner, as well as assuming that each person uses continuous

scales, such as Likert scales, in an identical fashion. In other words, nomothetic

research assumes that all people respond to categorical and continuous scalesusing the same metric (Michela, 1990; Molenaar, 2004). Because nomothetic

research treats each individual as a perfect exemplar of the group, the results of

nomothetic research are frequently treated as if they are accurate for each and

every member of the group.

Pavlovs (1927) work on conditional reflexes is a prime example of research

conducted in the pursuit of general laws and specifically aimed at explaining the

behavior of each and every nominally intelligent member of the animal kingdom.

Much of Freuds work (e.g., 1923-1960) attempted to explain the unconscious

processes and personality structure of all of humanity, or at least large sections of

humanity such as men or women Higgins self-discrepancy theory (1987) would


6/19


also be classified as nomothetic in relation to the goal of general laws because

the processes that self-discrepancy theory lays out are hypothesized to be valid

for everyone.

Because of the substantial amount of influence that the goal of general laws

has had on science, virtually all common statistical comparisons between people,

such as correlations, t tests, and ANOVAs, treat each member of a group as a

perfect, interchangeable exemplar of the group as a whole. As a result, research

using these statistical methods is typically, but not always (e.g., Beck, 1953; Bem

& Allen, 1974), considered nomothetic by definition (e.g., Borsboom et al., 2004;

Collins, 2006; Jaccard & Dittus, 1990; Lamiell, 2003; Molenaar, 2004).

gEnEral lawsIn dIffErEnt typEsof rEsEarch data

All scientific research is based on comparisons between different units.Therefore, general laws take on different forms depending on the type of research

being conducted.

General Laws in Group Research In group research, studies compare the level

of variables in different groups, such as decision-making groups or cultures. This

type of research indicates what is normally true about groups. Group research

is conducted to give some ability to predict the level of a variable (such as

performance or creativity) in a group given some knowledge of the groups level

on other variables (such as group cohesion or number of members).

A strict interpretation of general laws in group level research implies that theresults should hold for all groups. For example, research on the psychological

differences between collectivistic and individualistic cultures (e.g., Triandis,

1996) would be classified as idiographic by researchers holding this definition

(Lamiell, 2003). However, group research that violates the goal of general laws

is no longer typically called idiographic.

General Laws in Interindividual Research In interindividual level research,

studies compare the level of variables in different people. This type of research

indicates what is normally true about people. Interindividual research is conducted

to give some ability to predict the level of a variable (such as talkativeness orattractiveness) in an individual given some knowledge of the individuals level

on other variables (such as extraversion or body weight). It is at this level of

analysis that the goal of general laws is frequently interpreted as the goal of

understanding populations (Lamiell, 2003).

Historically, interindividual research was idiographic if the findings held for

only part of the population (Lamiell, 1998). This was interpreted to mean that

all research on interactions between variables (i.e., moderators) and all research

on psychological types (Gangestad & Snyder, 1985; Meehl, 1992) could be

classified as idiographic (Lamiell, 1998). For example, Beck (1953) argued

that idiographic research goes beyond the analysis of single traits to examine


7/19


the universe of traits, variables in mutual interplay, affecting one another;

these are the individual (p. 357). However, Eysenck (1954) quickly noted

that mainstream nomothetic research had long focused on interactions between

variables, and could easily account for interactions between continuous variables

simply by adding an interaction term into standard regression equations. Because

regression equations with interaction terms are applicable to the entire sample,

researchers such as Paunonen and Jackson (1985) have argued strongly that these

sorts of studies are not idiographic at all.

Similarly, the study of psychological types, also called class variables, has

been firmly rooted within the nomothetic tradition (e.g., Thurstone, 1935), even

if this has sometimes encountered significant opposition from more classical trait

researchers (Meehl, 1992). Therefore, researchers since Windelband (Lamiell,

1998) have generally abstained from classifying research on types as idiographic.However, this is starting to change with the recent application of intraindividual

research techniques to class variables (e.g., Dolan, Schmittmann, Lubke, &

Neale, 2005; Schmittmann, Visser, & Raijmakers, 2006).

In contrast, even though modern researchers all recognize the ability of

nomothetic methods to deal with interactions, the practice of associating

interactions with idiographic research has not disappeared completely. Some

modern researchers still see interactions as occurring at a more idiographic-

based, segment level (Jaccard & Dittus, 1990, p. 334; see also Bem, 1983).

Similarly, other researchers have continued to see idiographic research asfocused on finding new interactions or types of an interindividual nature. For

example, Ness and Tepe (2004; see also Jaccard & Dittus, 1990) argued that

interindividual methods leave open the question of why psychotherapy is

effective in some instances and not in others. This question is best articulated

through an idiographic approach, which supports the formulation of hypotheses

based on observations of symmetries across cases (p. 143). Idiographic research

according to this view functions simply as a pilot study to prepare the way for

nomothetic follow-up studies.

General Laws in Intraindividual Research In intraindividual level research,studies compare the level of variables in a person across various situations or

states. This type of research indicates what is normally true about a person.

Intraindividual level research is conducted to give some capacity to predict the

level of change in a variable (such as talkativeness or sadness) in a person given

some knowledge about change in other variables in the person (such as amount

of positive feedback or fatigue). Making the assumption that general laws

are violated in intraindividual research can lead to two different conclusions.

Firstly, (Bem, 1983), if general laws are violated in intraindividual research,

this would signify a lack of homogeneity within a person in their responses

across time or situations and is usually termed development situationalism or


8/19


even randomness if there is also a lack of homogeneity in responses to a given

situation as well. Secondly, and more commonly, (e.g., Lamiell, 2003), if general

laws are violated in intraindividual research, this would signify that people are

different in their intraindividual structures. For example, recent mathematical

and computational advances (cf., Moskowitz & Hershberger, 2002; Singer &

Willett, 2003; Twisk, 2003) now allow researchers to distinguish between intrain-

dividual variation (i.e., the times series family of analyses, and the type 1 model

in mixed regression and multilevel modeling) and interindividual differences in

intraindividual change (i.e., the type 2 model in mixed regression and multilevel

modeling). This allows for the simultaneous analysis of intraindividual variation,

with each individual having their own starting point (sometimes called a random

intercept model) and/or rate of change (sometimes called a random slope model),

and direct testing of whether individuals have different response patterns acrosssituations and time in a longitudinal sample (i.e., systematic violations of

general laws). Mixed regression and other multilevel models therefore have the

advantage that they can take into account patterns of intraindividual change

explicitly and then capitalize on interindividual differences in that intraindividual

variability (Nesselroade, 2002, p. 546). However, personal uniqueness in in-

traindividual structures is best captured by multivariate times series techniques,

especially dynamic factor analysis (Hamaker, Dolan, & Molenaar, 2005; Jones &

Nesselroade, 1990; Molenaar, 1985; Nesselroade, McArdle, Aggen, & Meyers,

2002; Wood & Brown, 1994). For example, in most longitudinal research,intraindividual error covariance structures are assumed to be identically het-

eroscedastic and identically autocorrelated (Singer & Willett, 2003), which can

be supported by arguments regarding parsimony and critiqued as potentially

overriding personal uniqueness.

It is at this intraindividual level of analysis that the classic goal of general

laws is most logically examined (Lamiell, 2003). This is because, in most

psychological domains (Molenaar, 2004), in order to find out what is true about

each and every person, one must study individuals and not populations (Lamiell,

2003). However, at the intraindividual level the only difference between anomothetic and idiographic method might be the number of subjects included

in a study, with nomothetic methods typically involving more subjects. Instead,

idiographic and nomothetic research goals in intraindividual research typically

mean a desire for a certain result, with idiographic researchers hoping to find and

focusing on personal uniqueness and nomothetic researchers hoping to find and

focusing on similarities.

General Laws as a Goal and Assumption Explicit assumptions that general laws

have been violated typically do not lead directly to a set of research methods

(e.g., Lamiell, 2003). Nevertheless, apparently for historical reasons, explicit


9/19


assumptions that general laws are violated are probably the best predictor of

whether a line of research is classified as idiographic or nomothetic.

For example, both Freud and B. F. Skinner have well-known bodies of research

that are classified both as idiographic (e.g., Tuerlinckx, 2004) and nomothetic

(e.g., Lamiell, 2003; Runyan, 1983). Skinner (1938) conducted a large amount

of single-subject, intraindividual research on operant conditioning. However,

Skinner explicitly theorized that the principles of operant conditioning hold for

everyone, and, therefore, he is typically thought of as a prototypical nomothetic

researcher (e.g., Lamiell, 2003; Runyan, 1983).

Similarly, Freuds (e.g., 1923-1960) research on personality appears to meet

every proposed feature of idiographic research except for the fact that Freud

explicitly assumed that there were general laws. For example, Freuds research

focused largely on intraindividual concepts such as the id and ego, was based onsingle subject designs, was based on qualitative research, contained moderators

such as gender, and allowed for some individual uniqueness in how unconscious

processes manifested themselves. However, since Freuds theory was based on

the assumption of general laws everyone was thought to have an unconscious,

an id, a superego, and so on. Therefore, Freuds theory of personality is not

remembered as the most famous of all the idiographic theories, but is often

featured as a prototypical nomothetic theory by idiographic theorists (e.g.,

Runyan, 1983).

Despite the fact that the most widely used definition of idiographic is basedon the assumption that there are no general laws, this research does not appear

to be the most useful strategy in most cases. At the group level, no researcher

still classifies research on cultural specifics as idiographic. At the interindividual

level, mainstream researchers are very aware that moderators exist for almost

every process and that their predictions are not equally accurate for each

participant (in which case all residuals would have the same absolute value).

At the intraindividual level, the nomothetic-idiographic distinction is less about

method, and more about focus and desired results (e.g., Lamiell, 2003).

Idiographic researchers so strongly emphasizing individual uniqueness (e.g.,arguing that psychological research cannot or should not be generalized to

populations) paradoxically may even have retarded the growth of self-described

idiographic research, because mainstream psychology no longer holds a strict

interpretation of general laws. This is especially true in mainstream longitudinal

or intraindividual research, where mainstream researchers are explicitly expected

to test for individual uniqueness in starting point and rate of change (e.g., Singer

& Willett, 2003).


10/19


UnIqUEmanIfEstatIonsas IdIographIc rEsEarch

The second way of defining idiographic research is as research that conceives

of latent variables as having a unique manifestation within an individual (e.g.,

Cervone, 2004; Higgins, 1987; Kelly, 1955). In other words, some idiographic

researchers, such as in Higgins (1987) research on self-discrepancies, conceive

of latent variables as taking on a slightly different image in each participant. This

type of unique manifestation of latent variables is operationalized through

providing measures tailor-made for each participant.

Researchers in this tradition have shown that some hypothesized universals,

such as the trait of extraversion (Cervone, 2004), can manifest differently in

different people. For example, Cervone found that personality descriptors, such

as the term responsible, are conceived differently by different people and are

predictive in different situations for each person. This type of uniqueness researchis a natural extension of traditional nomothetic research because it shows how

latent variables can be displayed differently or are uniquely manifested in each

person.

IdIographIc rEsEarchas IntraIndIVIdUal rEsEarch

The third way of defining idiographic research is as research that examines

individual change across situations or time (e.g., Cervone, 2005; Molenaar,

2004; Roberts, 2004; Shoda, Mischel, & Wright, 1994). This is sometimes called

research at the level of the individual, or examining within-subject or intrain-dividual variation.

Recent advances in psychometrics have revealed that a correspondence

between intra- and interindividual structures will occur only under specific

mathematical conditions (classic ergodic theorems) that do not hold in most

psychological domains (Molenaar, 2004). These theorems state that an analysis

of interindividual variation will not correspond to the pattern of intraindividual

variation when a process meets one or more of the following conditions: 1) a

mean trend that changes over time; 2) a covariance structure that changes over

time; and 3) when the process occurs differently in different members of thepopulation. In short, explanations and descriptions of interindividual variation,

such as those conducted using standard correlational and ANOVA designs,

are logically and practically independent from explanations and descriptions

of a single individuals behavior or experiences across situations and time

(Borsboom, 2005; Borsboom et al., 2004; Collins, 2006; Molenaar, 2004). Thus,

in most situations of interest to psychologists, intra- and interindividual variation

should be expected to be at least somewhat independent. However, these critical

advances have not yet been employed sufficiently as a conceptual tool for

organizing research in social and personality psychology.


11/19


There are also large differences in intraindividual and interindividual causal

accounts (Borsboom, 2005; Borsboom et al., 2004). For example, researchers

frequently make arguments such as: cultural differences cause differences

in worldview (Triandis, 1996), neuroticism causes depression, intelligence

causes intellectual performance. However, because culture, neuroticism, and

intelligence are typically conceived as unchanging, static variables, they cannot

be conceptualized as causes of intraindividual behavior. This is because if there

is no variation of these constructs within an individual, these variables cannot

covary with their supposed effects. However, static variables, of course, can

logically account for interindividual differences (Borsboom, 2005; Borsboom et

al., 2004; Lamiell, 2003).

Intraindividual research is not necessarily single-subject research, although

single-subject research is always intraindividual research. For example, toexamine the intraindividual structure of mood, a researcher could track a single

subjects mood over a month. The findings of this study, however, could only be

generalized to that individual, and thus could not tell us about the typical structure

of mood within people. For this reason, single-subject designs are incapable of

examining the degree of homogeneity (or degree of individual uniqueness) in the

domain. Single-subject research such as this also could not identify important

interindividual variables that could potentially influence the intraindividual

structure of mood, such as gender, neuroticism, or extraversion.

To get around the weaknesses posed by single subject designs, researchers havesimultaneously examined intraindividual variation in mood (e.g., Epstein, 1983)

and personality (e.g., Hamaker et al., 2005) across different people. In this way,

researchers have examined the generalizability of the intraindividual structure of

mood and personality, as well as the impact of interindividual variables on the

intraindividual structure.

arE thEsE dEfInItIons rEally sEparablE?

Researchers have traditionally maintained that all idiographic research shares

a common theme: research violating or not assuming general laws. Therefore, itappears likely that people will ask whether unique manifestation research and

intraindividual research are just the surviving lines of this earlier idea. Unique

manifestation research might indeed be a surviving line of research evolving out

of research not assuming general laws. However, lumping research not assuming

general laws and unique manifestation research together into a single category

might not be the most useful strategy for researchers, for the reason that unique

manifestation research fits within the nomothetic mainstream in virtually every

way with the exception that each individuals measures are personally tailored.

In essence, unique manifestation research assumes that variables look different

in different people and is silent about whether processes are different in different


12/19


people. In contrast, research not assuming general laws is more about processes

being different in different people. If variables looking different is seen as an

aspect of variables being different, then unique manifestation research is an

aspect of research not assuming general laws. This paper, however, is predicated

on the view that looking and being are sufficiently different concepts to deserve

their own categories.

Intraindividual research is also very different from research not assuming

general laws. Intraindividual research assumes that people change over time, but

does not necessarily assume that people are different in how they change over

time. In other words, it is true that people, in general, are different in how they

change and develop, but researchers need not assume this in order to conduct

and analyze meaningful intraindividual research. In fact, classical nomothetic

research is most logically conducted at the intraindividual level (Lamiell, 2004;Molenaar, 2004).

Similarly, idiographic research does not appear to be reducible simply to

moderator analysis. Moderator analysis is one method that researchers have

suggested (e.g., Beck, 1953; Bem & Allen, 1974) using for research that does

not assume strict general laws. However, as discussed earlier, the nomothetic

mainstream also uses moderators, so much so that moderators appear to form

a key strategy by which modern nomothetic psychology can continue to strive

for general laws in some sense: discovering equations that apply equally to

each member of the population (Paunonen & Jackson, 1985). Nevertheless,these equations are not necessarily equally true of each member, in which case

residuals would be hypothesized to be equal except due to method variance.

In addition, researchers do not classify prominent idiographic research such

as Higgins (1987) research on self-discrepancies and Simontons (1998) psy-

chohistorical research on historical figures as idiographic if and only if they

use moderators. In other words, moderator analysis does not appear to be a

useful way to theoretically or practically distinguish modern idiographic and

nomothetic research.

common nondIagnostIc charactErIstIcsof IdIographIc rEsEarch

There are two common characteristics of idiographic research that could be

construed as additional categories of idiographic research: qualitative research

and narrative life research. However, these two research strategies are best seen

as common characteristics of idiographic research, but probably should not be

seen as categories of idiographic research themselves. In other words, these are

common, but nondiagnostic, characteristics of idiographic research.

Qualitative Research Although this paper has focused largely on quantitative

idiographic research, it continues to be true that much, if not most, self-

described idiographic research uses qualitative research methods Qualitative


13/19


research methods involve analyzing and interpreting texts and interviews in

order to discover meaningful patterns (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003, p. 1).

As qualitative research can be used to attempt to find general laws (e.g., Freud,

1923, 1960), qualitative research does not need to assume unique manifestations

of phenomena, and can be used at all levels and in all types of research. As a

result, qualitative data is not reducible, separately or in combination, to any of

the three categories of idiographic research identified in this paper. Although it

would be easy to classify many types of qualitative research would be easy to

classify as idiographic, such as case studies and diary research, many other types

of qualitative research as idiographic, such as a typical analysis of a focus group

explaining their perceptions of a new advertising campaign. In short, the use of

qualitative methods is a common characteristic of idiographic research, but is not

a defining feature of idiographic research.Narrative Life Research Narrative research is a special type of qualitative case

study in which subjects narrate stories, frequently about their own life (McAdams,

2001). Narrative life research is based on the assumption that people see their

lives as stories that continually shape their behavior and give them meaning and

identity (McAdams, 2001; McAdams & Pals, 2006). As narrative life research

is probably the most prototypical and obviously idiographic line of research in

mainstream psychological journals, it could be seen as a potential candidate for

a fourth type of idiographic research. However, narrative life research typically:

does not assume general laws (e.g., everyone has their own life story and uniqueidentity); assumes, or is at least compatible with, unique manifestations of

psychological constructs (e.g., identity and meaning); and, as a narrative, must

always examine intraindividual variation across time or imagined time. Thus,

because narrative life research is typically idiographic in all three ways identified

in this article, it appears unlikely that it has some other distinct characteristic that

is also shared with other lines of research that do not themselves fit into one of

the three other categories of idiographic research previously identified. In short,

narrative life research appears to be a prototypical type of idiographic research

that can combine all three categories of idiographic research, but that does notitself appear to be a separate category of idiographic research.

conclusion

In this paper a new conceptual scheme has been proposed that attempted to do

away with the concept of idiographic research as a single entity. Unlike previous

unitary conceptions of idiographic research, this author proposed that there are

three independent types of idiographic research: research not assuming general

laws, unique manifestation research, and intraindividual research. Therefore, the

paper aimed to establish that the classic idiographic-nomothetic debate should be


14/19


closed in favor of three minidebates over the value of each of the three kinds of

idiographic research when compared to mainstream nomothetic research.

In addition, these three types of idiographic research have not shown equal

value in developing active and influential lines of research. Research based on

either unique manifestations or intraindividual variation, although not terribly

common, has been relatively fruitful and lasting. Thus, these two lines of

idiographic research thus should be expected to grow and form an essential part

of 21st century psychology.

In contrast, research based on the assumption that there are no general laws

has proven exceedingly difficult to design in ways different from research

conducted by the nomothetic mainstream (e.g., Bem & Allen, 1974) and what

little research has been done has not been terribly fruitful in stimulating further

research (e.g., Lamiell, 1981, 1982). In addition, it is not even clear at this pointwhat a valid idiographic study based on violations of general laws would look

like if the study did not also meet at least one of the two other characteristics of

idiographic research. In other words, focusing on general laws no longer seems

valuable to idiographic science for at least two reasons. The first reason is that

the nomothetic mainstream largely recognizes that general laws, in the original

historical understanding of the term, should not be expected. The second reason

is that the modern conception of a general law is something akin to a regression

equation incorporating moderators: that is, equations that apply equally to the

entire population even though they are not equally true of each person (Paunonen& Jackson, 1985).

Once the so-called idiographic-nomothetic debate is closed in favor of mini-

debates examining the (im)possibility of general laws, unique manifestations of

universal phenomena, and the value of examining intraindividual variation, a less

combative dialog between the relatively marginalized idiographic researchers and

the more numerous and more recognized nomothetic researchers can be initiated,

which could be of great benefit to both camps. In other words, once these

separate types of idiographic research are recognized, the correct relationships

between idiographic research and mainstream research will be more apparentand new, underexplored avenues of research will be more easily recognized and

incorporated into established areas of study.

references

Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &

Winston.

Allport, G. W. (1961).Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Allport, G. W. (1962). The general and the unique in psychological science.Journal of Personality,

30, 405-422.

Auerbach, C. F., & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and analysis.


15/19


Beck, S. J. (1953). The science of personality: Nomothetic or idiographic? Psychological Review,

60, 353-359.

Bem, D. J. (1983). Constructing a theory of the triple typology: Some (second) thoughts on

nomothetic and idiographic approaches to personality.Journal of Personality, 51, 566-577.

Bem, D. J., & Allen, A. (1974). On predicting some of the people some of the time: The search for

cross-situational consistencies in behavior.Psychological Review, 81, 506-520.

Borsboom, D. (2005). Measuring the mind: Conceptual issues in contemporary psychometrics.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological

Review, 111, 1061-1071.

Cervone, D. (2004). The architecture of personality. Psychological Review, 111, 183-204.

Cervone, D. (2005). Personality architecture: Within-person structures and processes.Annual Review

of Psychology, 56, 423-452.

Cloninger, S. C. (1996). Personality: Description, dynamics, and development. New York:

Freeman.

Collins, L. M. (2006). Analysis of longitudinal data: The integration of theoretical model, temporaldesign, and statistical model.Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 505-528.

Dolan, C. V., Schmittmann, V. D., Lubke, G. H., & Neale, M. C. (2005). Regime switching in the

latent growth curve mixture model. Structural Equation Modeling, 12(1), 94-119.

Epstein, S. (1983). Aggregation and beyond: Some basic issues in the prediction of behavior.Journal

of Personality, 51, 360-392.

Eysenck, H. J. (1954). The science of personality: Nomothetic!Psychological Review, 61, 339-342.

Freud, S. (1960). The ego and the id. New York: Norton. (Original work published 1923).

Gangestad, S., & Snyder, M. (1985). To carve nature at its joints: On the existence of discrete

classes in personality.Psychological Review, 92, 317-349.

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(2), 207-233.

Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect.Psychological Review, 94,

319-340.

Higgins, E. T. (1990). Personality, social psychology, and person-situation relations: Standards and

knowledge activation as a common language. In L. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality:

Theory and research (pp. 301-338). New York: Guilford Press.

Holt, R. R. (1962). Individuality and generalization in the psychology of personality. Journal of

Personality, 30, 377-404.

Jaccard, J., & Dittus, P. (1990). Idiographic and nomothetic perspectives on research methods and

data analysis. In C. Hendrick & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Research methods in personality and social psychology: Vol. 11 Review of personality and social psychology (pp. 312-351). London: Sage

Publications.

Jones, C. J., & Nesselroade, J. R. (1990). Multivariate, replicated, single-subject, repeated measures

designs and P-technique factor analysis: A review of intraindividual change studies.Experimental

Aging Research, 16(4), 171-83.

Kelly, G. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.

Lamiell, J. T. (1981). Toward an idiothetic psychology of personality. American Psychologist, 36,

276-289.

Lamiell, J. T. (1982). The case for an idiothetic psychology of personality: A conceptual and empirical

foundation. In B. A. Maher & W. B. Maher (Eds.),Progress in experimental personality research

(Vol. 11, pp.1-64). New York: Academic Press.Lamiell, J. T. (1987). The psychology of personality: An epistemological inquiry. New York:

C l bi U i i P


16/19


Lamiell, J. T. (1998). Nomothetic and idiographic: Contrasting Windelbands understanding with

contemporary usage. Theory & Psychology, 8, 23-38.

Lamiell, J. T. (2003). Beyond individual and group differences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

McAdams, D. P. (2001). The psychology of life stories.Review of General Psychology, 5(22), 100-

122.

McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an integrative

science of personality.American Psychologist, 61(3), 204-217.

Meehl, P. E. (1954). Clinical vs. statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the

evidence. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Meehl, P. E. (1992). Factors and taxa, traits and types, differences in degree and differences in kind.

Journal of Personality, 60, 117-174.

Michela, J. L. (1990). Within-person correlation design and analysis. In C. Hendrick & M. S. Clark

(Eds.),Research methods in personality and social psychology: Vol. 11 Review of personality and

social psychology (pp. 312-351). London: Sage Publications.

Mischel, W. (1983). Alternatives in the pursuit of the predictability and consistency of persons: Stabledata yield unstable interpretations.Journal of Personality, 51, 578-604.

Molenaar, P. C. M. (1985). A dynamic factor model for the analysis of multivariate time series.

Psychometrika, 50, 181-202.

Molenaar, P. C. M. (2004). A manifesto in psychology as idiographic science: Bringing the person

back into scientific psychology, this time forever.Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and

Perspectives, 2, 201-218.

Moskowitz, D. S., & Hershberger, S. L. (Eds.) (2002). Modeling intraindividual variability with

repeated measures data. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ness, J. W., & Tepe, V. (2004). Theoretical assumptions and scientific architecture. The Science and

Simulation of Human Performance: Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive EngineeringResearch, 5, 127-155.

Nesselroade, J. R. (2002). Elaborating the differential in differential psychology. Multivariate

Behavioral Research, 37, 543-561.

Nesselroade, J. R., McArdle, J. J., Aggen, S. H., & Meyers, J. M. (2002). Dynamic factor analysis

models for representing process in multivariate time-series. In D. S. Moskowitz & S. L.

Hershberger (Eds.),Modeling intraindividual variability with repeated measures data (pp. 233-

265). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum,

Nunnally, J. C. (1967).Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Paunonen, S. V., & Jackson, D. N. (1985). Idiographic measurement strategies for personality and

prediction: Some unredeemed promissory notes.Psychological Review, 92, 486-511.

Pavlov, I. (1927). Conditioned reflexes. New York: Oxford University Press.Pervin, L. A. (1996). Personality: A view of the future based on a look at the past.Journal of Research

in Personality, 30, 309-318.

Roberts, S. (2004). Self-experimentation as a source of new ideas: Ten examples about sleep, mood,

health, and weight.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 227-288.

Runyan, W. M. (1983). Idiographic goals and methods in the study of lives.Journal of Personality,

51, 413-437.

Schmittmann, V. D., Visser, I., & Raijmakers, M. E. J. (2006). Multiple learning modes in the

development of performance on a rule-based category-learning task. Neuropsychologia, 44,

2079-2091.

Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Wright, J. (1994). Intraindividual stability in the organization andpatterning of behavior: Incorporating psychological situations into the idiographic analysis of

personality.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 674-687.


17/19


Simonton, D. K. (1998). Mad King George: The impact of personal and political stress on mental and

physical health.Journal of Personality, 66, 443-466.

Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003).Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event

occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press.

Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York: Appleton-

Century.

Thurstone, L. L. (1935). The vectors of the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Triandis, H. C. (1996). The psychological measurement of cultural syndromes.American Psychologist,

51, 407-415.

Tuerlinckx, F. (2004). The idiographic approach: Where do we come and where do we go?

Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 2, 240-243.

Twisk, J. W. R. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis for epidemiology: A practical guide.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Windelband, W. (1998). History and natural science (J. T. Lamiell, Trans.). Strasburg: Heitz.

(Original work published 1894).

Wood, P., & Brown, D. (1994). The study of intraindividual differences by means of dynamic factormodels: Rationale, implementation, and interpretation.Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 166-186.


18/19



19/19

a tripartite model of idiographic research

Documents