Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Regular Article
  • Published:
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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”.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The term “personality” put in quotation marks indicates that its definitions vary and that different researchers use this term to refer to different kinds of phenomena (see Uher 2014a, b in this trilogy).

  2. To appear in the Annals of Theoretical Psychology, vols. 12, 13.

  3. The term “non-physical” is put in quotation marks in the TPS-Paradigm because it denotes properties that are not simply contrasted against the physical but are complementary instead (see Uher 2014a).

  4. The terms morphology and physiology denote the organismal structures and functions, in and of themselves, rather than the scientific disciplines that explore these kinds of phenomena.

  5. The meaning of the term mediation in the TPS-Paradigm refers to the Latin mediare, to be in the middle, not to the meaning established in statistics (where it is differentiated from moderation).

  6. Digital data can be conceived as immaterial; however, as they can be perceived and used only through the material phenomena to which they are systematically related and bound (e.g., computer screen and other hardware), this specification is irrelevant for the issues explored here.

  7. The term “trait” has very different meanings that require careful differentiation. In biological research on individual differences especially in animals, “trait” primarily denotes a single datum encoding the occurrence of a particular behavioural event in an individual. In psychology, by contrast, the term “trait” denotes a construct of individual-specificity summarising multiple data of occurrences of various kinds of events in many individuals. These terminological differences have caused profound conceptual misunderstandings between biologists and psychologists (Uher 2011a). But also within psychology, connotations of “trait” vary. Some psychologists refer to “traits” as descriptive summary constructs denoting individual-specificity in phenomena that are directly perceptible (McAdams 1992; Westen 1996), whereas others refer to “traits” as individual-specificity in phenomena that are internal to individuals and causally underlie their perceptible properties (McCrae and Costa 1997; Matthews et al. 2003). To avoid misunderstandings and to refrain from implying a-priori assumptions about causality and stability commonly attributed to “trait”-concepts, some psychologists who interpret taxonomic constructs as descriptive summary constructs therefore refrain from using the term “traits” (e.g., Goldberg 1982; Saucier and Goldberg 1996).

  8. Translated original: “La représentation linguistique est une transformation d’une représentation perceptive, et c’est lors de cette transformation que les structures propres de la langue vont produire la forme finale en imposant leurs propres contraintes sémiotiques” (Lahlou 1998, p. 94).

  9. See, for example, the name of the author’s research group at FUB: Comparative Differential and Personality Psychology.

References

  • Abbey, E., & Diriwächter, R. (Eds.). (2008). Innovating genesis: microgenesis and the constructive mind in action. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Ader, R. (2006) Psychoneuroimmunology. Volume 1 (4th ed.). China: Elsevier Academic Press.

  • Allport, G. W. (1931). What is a trait of personality? Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 25, 368–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allport, G. W. (1966). Traits revisited. American Psychologist, 21, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait names: a psycholexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47, 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allport, G. W., & Vernon, P. E. (1933). Studies in expressive movement. New York: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • APA, American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

  • Arro, G. (2013). Peeking into personality test answers: Inter- and intraindividual variety in item interpretations. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 47, 56–76.

  • 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.

  • Baldwin, J. M. (1896). A new factor in evolution. The American Naturalist, 30, 441–451, 536–553.

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Bauer, M. & Gaskell, G. (Eds). (2000). Qualitative researching with text, image and sound. London: Sage.

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Block, J. (2010). The five-factor framing of personality and beyond: Some ruminations. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 2–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohr, N. (1937). Causality and complementarity. Philosophy and Science, 4, 289–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boring, E. G. (1953). A history of introspection. Psychological Bulletin, 50, 169–189.

  • Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brower, D. (1949). The problem of quantification of psychological science. Psychological Review, 56, 325–331.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bühler, K. (1907). Tatsachen und Probleme zu einer Psychologie der Denkvorgänge I. Über Gedanken. Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie, 9, 297–365.

  • Buss, D. M. (2009). How can evolutionary psychology successfully explain personality and individual differences? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 359–366.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (2013). Rethinking introspection. A pluralist approach to the first-person perspective. Houndmills, Basingstroke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Caprara, F. (1996). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality II. Basic traits resolved into clusters. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38, 476–507.

  • Cattell, R. B. (1965). The scientific analysis of personality. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cloninger, C. R. (1986). A unified biosocial theory of personality and its role in the development of anxiety states. Psychiatric Developments, 3, 167–226.

  • Collingwood, R. G. (1940). An essay on metaphysics. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

  • 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.

  • Danziger, K. (1997). Naming the mind: How psychology found its language. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Eysenck, H. J. (1947). Dimensions of personality. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, H. J. (1952). The scientific study of psychology. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, H. J. (1990). Genetic and environmental contributions to individual differences: The three major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality, 58, 245–261.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrenberg, J. (1979). Das Komplementaritätsprinzip in der psychophysiologischen Forschung und psychosomatischen Medizin. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 27, 151–167.

  • 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.

  • Fahrenberg, J. (2004). Annahmen über den Menschen. Menschenbilder aus psychologischer, biologischer, religiöser und interkultureller Sicht. Heidelberg-Kröning: Asanger-Verlag.

  • 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: http://psydok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/volltexte/2008/1557/

  • Fahrenberg, J. (2013). Zur Kategorienlehre der Psychologie. Komplementaritätsprinzip. Perspektiven und Perspektiven-Wechsel. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faßnacht, G. (1982). Theory and practice of observing behaviour (2nd ed.). London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Flick, U. (2008). Managing quality in qualitative research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freud, S. (1915). The unconscious. Standard Edition, 14, 159–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Gödel, K. (1931). Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 38, 173–198.

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": the Big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guilford, J. P. (1959). Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.

  • Hartmann, N. (1964). Der Aufbau der realen Welt. Grundriss der allgemeinen Kategorienlehre. (3. Aufl.). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

  • Heisenberg, W. (1927). Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. Zeitschrift für Physik, 43, 172–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Hofsteede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. California: Sage Publications.

  • 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 

  • James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Holt.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Kant, I. (1781/1998). Kritik der reinen Vernunft (Hrsg. J. Timmermann). Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kant, I. (1798/2000). Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht (Hrsg. R. Brandt). Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.

  • Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs (Vol. 1 and 2). New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, J. E., & Figueredo, A. J. (1997). The five-factor model plus dominance in chimpanzee personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 257–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt Psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.

    Google Scholar 

  • Köhler, W. (1969). The task of Gestalt Psychology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Komatsu, K. (2012). Temporal reticence of the self: who can know myself? Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 46, 357–372.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Køppe, S. (2012). A moderate eclecticism: ontological and epistemological issues. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 46, 1–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lahlou, S. (1996). Propagation of social representations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 26, 157–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahlou, S. (1998). Penser-manger. Paris: Les Presses Universitaires de France.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahlou, S., Nosulenko, V., & Samoylenko, E. (2009). SUBCAM technology as an instrument in psychological science. Experimental Psychology, 1, 72–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamiell, J. T. (1998). ‘Nomothetic’ and ‘Idiographic’: Contrasting Windelband’s understanding with contemporary usage. Theory and Psychology, 8, 23–38.

  • 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 

  • Larocco, S. (2014). Ideology, affect, semiotics: Towards a non-personal theory of personality. Integrated Psychological and Behavioral Science, 48, 129–142.

  • Laucken, U. (1974). Naive Verhaltenstheorie. Stuttgart: Klett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Bellu, S., Lahlou, S., & Nosulenko, V. (2010). Capture and transfer the knowledge embodied in a professional act. Social Science Information, 49, 371–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Poidevin, R. (2011). The experience and perception of time. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/time-experience/. Retrieved 14 Mar 2014

  • Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

  • Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, J. (1689). Essay concerning human understanding. Book I. The Project Gutenberg EBook #10615. http://www.gutenberg.org. Retrieved 08 Sep 2013

  • Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Genes and environment in personality development. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

  • Luisi, P. L. (2003). Autopoiesis: a review and a reappraisal. Naturwissenschaften, 90, 49–59.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, G., Deary, I. J., & Whiteman, M. C. (2003). Personality traits (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maturana, H. R. (1975). The organization of the living: A theory of the living organization. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 7, 313–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E. (1988). Toward a new philosophy of biology: Observations of an evolutionist. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • McAdams, D. P. (1992). The five-factor model in personality: A critical appraisal. Journal of Personality, 60, 329–361.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R. (2011). Personality theories for the 21st century. Teaching of Psychology, 38, 209–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509–516.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mehl, M. R., & Conner, T. S. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of research methods for studying daily life. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millikan, R. (1993). White queen psychology and other essays for Alice. Bradford: MIT Press.

  • Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York, NY: Wiley.

  • Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1994). Personality psychology has two goals: Must it be two fields? Psychological Inquiry, 5, 156–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mischel, W. & Shoda, Y. (1998). Reconciling processing dynamics and personality dispositions. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 229–258.

  • Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Ayduk, O. (2007). Personality (8th ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical Review, 83, 435–450.

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, Y. (2014). Introduction to computational cultural psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Norman, T. (1967). 2,800 personality trait descriptors: Normative operating characteristics for a university population. Ann Arbor, MI: Department of Psychology, University of Michigan.

  • Ogden, C. K. (1932). Bentham's theory of fictions. New York: Harcourt Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pauli, R. (1927). Einführung in die experimentelle Psychologie. Leipzig: Quelle und Meyer.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Pervin, L. A. & John, O. P. (1997). Personality: theory and research (7th ed). New York, NY: Wiley.

  • Popper, K. R. (1934). Logik der Forschung. Wien: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prigogine, I. (1996). The end of certainty. Time, chaos, and the new laws of nature. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, J. M. (1990). Units of analysis and the individual difference fallacy in environmental assessment. Environment & Behaviour, 22, 307–319.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothschuh, K. E. (1963). Theorie des Organsimus. Bios – Psyche – Pathos (2. erw. Aufl.). München: Urban & Schwarzenberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall.

  • Royce, J. (1891). The religious aspect of philosophy: a critique of the bases of conduct and of faith. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rychlak, J. F. (1968). A philosophy of science for personality theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Salvatore, S., & Valsiner, J. (2010). Between the general and the unique: overcoming the nomothetic versus idiographic opposition. Theory and Psychology, 20, 817–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Sameroff, A. (2010). A unified theory of development: a dialectic integration of nature and nurture. Child Development, 81, 6–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Schacter, D. (1999). The seven sins of memory: Insights from psychology and cognitive neuroscience. American Psychologist, 54, 182–203.

  • Schacter, D. L. & Addis, D. R. (2007). Constructive memory: Ghosts of past and future. Nature, 445, 27.

  • Shotter. J. (1975). Images of man in psychological research. London: Methuen.

  • 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 

  • Stern, W. (1911). Die Differentielle Psychologie in ihren methodischen Grundlagen. Leipzig: Barth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, W. (1918). Grundgedanken der personalistischen Philosophie. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, W. (1924). Wertphilosophie (Person und Sache. System des kritischen Personalismus. Dritter Band). Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth.

  • Stern, W. (1935). Allgemeine Psychologie auf personalistischer Grundlage. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tellegen, A. (1993). Folk concepts and psychological concepts of personality and personality disorder. Psychological Inquiry, 4, 122–130.

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1993). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Individuality. New York: Houghton-Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Uher, J. (2011a). Individual behavioral phenotypes: an integrative metatheoretical framework. Why 'behavioral syndromes' are not analogues of 'personality'. Developmental Psychobiology, 53, 521–548.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valsiner, J. (1987). Culture and the development of children’s actions: A cultural–historical theory of developmental psychology. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valsiner, J. (1998). The guided mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valsiner, J. (2000). Culture and human development. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valsiner, J. (2012). A guided science: History of psychology in the mirror of its making. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varela, F. J., Maturana, H. R., & Uribe, R. (1974). Autopoiesis: the organization of living systems, its characterization and a model. BioSystems, 5, 187–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vedhara, K. & Irwin, M. (2005). Human psychoneuroimmunology. Oxford University Press.

  • von Bertalanffy, L. (1937). Das Gefüge des Lebens. Leipzig: Teubner.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bertalanffy, L. (1973). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York: George Braziller.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Uexküll, J. (1909). Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, W. (1994). The fallacy of misplaced intentionality in social representation research. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 24, 243–266.

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Walach, H. (2013) Psychologie. Wissenschaftstheorie, philosophische Grundlagen und Geschichte. Ein Lehrbuch. (3., überarb. Auflage). Unter Mitarbeit von N. v. Stillfried. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

  • Watson, J. D., & Crick, F. H. C. (1953). A structure for deoxyribose mucleic acid. Nature, 171, 737–738.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westen, D. (1999). The scientific status of unconscious processes: Is Freud really dead? Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 47, 1061–1106.

  • Whitehead, A. N. (1929a). Process and reality. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, A. N. (1929b). The function of reason (Chapter 2, pp. 37–61). Boston: Beacon Press.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • WHO, World Health Organisation. (2010). International statistical classifcation of diseases and related health problems (10th revision). Malta: WHO.

  • Wundt, W. (1863). Vorlesungen über die Menschen- und Thierseele. Hamburg: Voss.

  • Wundt, W. (1894). Über psychische Kausalität und das Prinzip des psycho-physischen Parallelismus. Philosophische Studien, 10, 1–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wundt, W. (1896). Grundriss der Psychologie. Stuttgart: Körner. Online at https://archive.org/

  • Wundt, W. (1904). Principles of physiological psychology. London, UK: Allen.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Zuckerman, M. (1991). Psychobiology of personality. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom

    Jana Uher

  2. Comparative Differential and Personality Psychology, Free University Berlin, Habelschwerdter Allee 45, 14195, Berlin, Germany

    Jana Uher

Authors
  1. Jana Uher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jana Uher.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Uher, J. Interpreting “Personality” Taxonomies: Why Previous Models Cannot Capture Individual-Specific Experiencing, Behaviour, Functioning and Development. Major Taxonomic Tasks Still Lay Ahead. Integr. psych. behav. 49, 600–655 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-014-9281-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-014-9281-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation