Search

Advances in knowledge about personality will be fostered by improved research methods, but corresponding improvements in our theories will be needed also, better methods will not be enough. Theory itself can have methodological functions, and some methods provide strong impetus toward greater theoretical clarity and rigor. Distinctions between methodological developments in research design, measurement, and analysis need to be maintained, and we badly need more research directed specifically toward improving methodologies. Some papers in this volume point quite clearly to the need for all aspects of our research to be better rationalized and deliberate, casual and opportunistic decisions about how to carry out research simply will not do. These papers indicate, for example, that the trait vs situation controversy would likely never have occurred had the issues been addressed with greater methodological, and logical, rigor. This volume is not complete in its coverage of the potentially useful methods for personality research, and attention should ultimately be devoted to such methods as life histories and case studies and cross-cultural comparisons. In general, however, the papers in this volume offer an opportunity to raise the level of research in personality to a new plane of sophistication and revealingness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How might our expanding knowledge of gender contribute to a deeper understanding of personality? This paper offers a personological perspective for considering the import of contemporary work, and focuses on the ten substantive papers included in this issue of the Journal of Personality. An agenda for our future inquiry is proposed that includes (a) revising our ideology of science in a postpositivist era, (b) recognizing the complexity of personality as a domain distinguished from "human being theory," (c) developing richer and more comprehensive personality theory, and (d) studying persons over time. The papers reported in this issue contribute in various ways to the enrichment of personological understanding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A fundamental aspect of Hans Eysenck's research was his emphasis upon using all the tools available to the researcher to study personality. This included correlational, experimental, physiological, and genetic approaches. Fifty years after Cronbach's call for the reunification of the two disciplines of psychology ( Cronbach, 1957 ) and 40 years after Eysenck's plea for experimental approaches to personality research ( H. J. Eysenck, 1966 ), what is the status of the unification? Should personality researchers use experimental techniques? Do experimental techniques allow us to tease out causality, and are we communicating the advantages of combining experimental with multivariate correlational techniques? We review the progress made since Cronbach's and Eysenck's original papers and suggest that although it is still uncommon to find experimental studies of personality, psychology would benefit from the joint use of correlational and experimental approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent discussions of the idiographic-nomothetic debate were initially reviewed in this paper. Three important issues stemming from this debate were then expounded within the context of Personal Construct Theory and evaluated in an empirical study. Participants were required to rate themselves and people they knew on 25 marker items for the Big Five personality traits and on 12 of their own unique personal constructs. The ratings were analyzed using a number of novel statistical methods, including a simple type of confirmatory factor analysis and an informative graphing procedure. Results indicated that at least half of the statistical information derived from the idiographic, personal construct ratings was unique when compared to ratings on the nomothetic Big Five items. The implications of these methods and results for person-centered and trait conceptualizations of personality were discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]