Toward an idiothetic psychology of personality.

Abstract

Because individual differences research fails to confront the most basic problem of all in the scientific study of personality-that of providing an adequate framework for personality description-such research is fundamentalhj inadequate for the purposes of a science of personality. The author therefore proposes that a clear distinction be maintained between differential psychology and personality psychology and that individual differences research be recognized as relevant to the concerns of the former. An alternative to the individual differences paradigm, termed idiothetic, is suggested as a general framework for the scientific study of personality. Within this framework, the basic problem of personality description would be approached in an explicitly idiographic manner, while the search for nomothetic principles would center around questions of personality development. The Need for an Alternative to the Individual Differences ParadigmAs just mentioned, the most basic (though clearly not the only) problem for a science of personality

Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology

“…They also demonstrate how it can be used for an exercise that psychologists often talk about but rarely carry out-an idiographic study of a single individual's life (Allport 1962;Lamiell 1981). The best way to understand the method is to see how it works for one individual; What kind of information does it obtain, and how convincingly does it document a person's experiences?…”

Mean-level change and intraindividual variability in self-esteem and depression among high-risk children

“…Accordingly, it is critical for research on developmental processes to provide direct information on developmental change within the individual (Wohlwill, 1973). Empirical evidence has been accumulated suggesting the importance of studying intraindividual variability in understanding complex developmental processes across the life span (e.g., Cattell, 1963; Fleeson & Leicht, 2006; Kim & Nesselroade, 2003; Lamiell, 1981; Larsen, 1987; Molenaar, 1985; Nesselroade, 2004). From a measurement standpoint, assessing intraindividual change and identifying interindividual differences (and similarities) in intraindividual change are main goals for longitudinal research because they are key to obtaining a fuller understanding of behavior and behavioral development.…”

Concept and Method in Contemporary Temperament Research

“…For example, aspects of labile variables may display important interindividual differences (e.g., in amplitude or periodicity) that are relatively stable and that predict other interindividual differences. Indeed, a rapidly growing literature identifies short-term, intraindividual variability as a source of interindividual differences that can be usedin prediction (e.g., Fox &Porges, 1985;Lamiell, 1981;Larsen, 1987;Nesselroade, 1991;Nesselroade & Boker, 1994;Shoda, Mischel, & Wright, 1994;Siegler, 1994;Zevon & Tellegen, 1982). Admittedly, this literature still represents a stability emphasis in keeping with predicting from interindividual differences, but in this case, stability is defined on a more abstract level (in the parameters of intraindividual variability patterns) than the usual level of more or less fixed true scores on some attribute.…”