SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2008, 36(8), 1123-1140 Society for Personality Research (Inc.

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 psychology by 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.
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

1123

1124

PROGRESSING PAST IDIOGRAPHIC RESEARCH

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 these alternative 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 with newly 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.

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 (18941998). 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 of idiographic 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

1126

PROGRESSING PAST IDIOGRAPHIC RESEARCH

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, psychohistorical 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 months after 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. All three 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 its original 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,

PROGRESSING PAST IDIOGRAPHIC RESEARCH

1127

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 rEsEarch as a VIolatIon of UnIVErsal homogEnEIty The traditional goal of pure nomothetic research was the goal of general laws. In psychology, 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 are equally 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 scales using 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

1128

PROGRESSING PAST IDIOGRAPHIC RESEARCH

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 laws In dIffErEnt typEs of 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 the results 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 or attractiveness) 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

PROGRESSING PAST IDIOGRAPHIC RESEARCH

1129

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 idiographicbased, segment level (Jaccard & Dittus, 1990, p. 334; see also Bem, 1983). Similarly, other researchers have continued to see idiographic research as focused 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

1130

PROGRESSING PAST IDIOGRAPHIC RESEARCH

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 intraindividual 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 across situations 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 intraindividual 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 heteroscedastic 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 a nomothetic 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

PROGRESSING PAST IDIOGRAPHIC RESEARCH

1131

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 on single 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 based on 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).

1132

PROGRESSING PAST IDIOGRAPHIC RESEARCH

UnIqUE manIfEstatIons as 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 research is 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 rEsEarch as 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 intraindividual 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 the population. 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.

PROGRESSING PAST IDIOGRAPHIC RESEARCH

1133

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, to examine 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 have simultaneously 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, it appears 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

1134

PROGRESSING PAST IDIOGRAPHIC RESEARCH

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) psychohistorical 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 charactErIstIcs of 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, selfdescribed idiographic research uses qualitative research methods. Qualitative

PROGRESSING PAST IDIOGRAPHIC RESEARCH

1135

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 unique identity); 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 not itself 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

1136

PROGRESSING PAST IDIOGRAPHIC RESEARCH

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 point what 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 minidebates 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 apparent and 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. New York: New York University Press.

PROGRESSING PAST IDIOGRAPHIC RESEARCH

1137

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, temporal design, 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: Columbia University Press.

1138

PROGRESSING PAST IDIOGRAPHIC RESEARCH

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), 100122. 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: Stable data 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 Engineering Research, 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. 233265). 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 and patterning of behavior: Incorporating psychological situations into the idiographic analysis of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 674-687.

PROGRESSING PAST IDIOGRAPHIC RESEARCH

1139

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: AppletonCentury. 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 factor models: Rationale, implementation, and interpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 166-186.

1140

PROGRESSING PAST IDIOGRAPHIC RESEARCH