Reviving Person-Centered Inquiry in Psychology: Why it's Erstwhile Dormancy?

  • James T. Lamiell


Just a few short years ago one of the co-editors of this volume published an article in the journal Measurement under the title: “A Manifesto on Psychology as Idiographic Science: Bringing the Person Back Into Scientific Psychology, This Time Forever” (Molenaar, 2004). To one who himself has long advocated just such a development, this bold manifesto was most welcome indeed. But the very claim to lately be bringing the person back into scientific psychology begs the questions: why has this proved necessary? and: where had the person been for all of those previous years?


Knowledge Claim Individual Psychology Scientific Psychology Subjectivist Understanding Social Physic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Buckle, H. T. (1857/1898). A history of civilization in England. New York: D. Appleton and Company.Google Scholar
  2. Cattell, R. B. (1952). The three basic factor-analytic research designs—Their interrelations and derivatives. Psychological Bulletin, 49, 499–520.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Danziger, K. (1987). Statistical method and the historical development of research practice in American psychology. In L. Krueger, G. Gigerenzer, & M. S. Morgan (Eds.), The probabilistic revolution: Vol. 2. Ideas in the sciences (pp. 35–47). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject: Historical origins of psychological research. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eysenck, H. J. (1954). The science of personality: Nomothetic! Psychological Review, 61, 339–342.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Hacking, I. (1975). The emergence of probability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Harré, R. (2006). Key thinkers in psychology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Hofstee, W. (2007). Unbehagen in individual differences. Journal of Individual Differences, 28, 252–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Holt, R. W. (1962). Individuality and generalization in the psychology of personality. Journal of Personality, 30, 377–404.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Lamiell, J. T. (1981). Toward an idiothetic psychology of personality. American Psychologist, 36, 276–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lamiell, J. T. (1987). The psychology of personality: An epistemological inquiry. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Lamiell, J. T. (1990). Explanation in the psychology of personality. In D. N. Robinson & L. P. Mos (Eds.), Annals of theoretical psychology (pp. 153–192). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lamiell, J. T. (1997). Individuals and the differences between them. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 117–141). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  15. Lamiell, J. T. (1998). ‘Nomothetic’ and ‘idiographic’: Contrasting Windelband’s understanding with contemporary usage. Theory and Psychology, 10, 715–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lamiell, J. T. (2000). A periodic table of personality elements? The “Big Five” and trait “psychology” in critical perspective. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 20, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lamiell, J. T. (2003). Beyond individual and group differences: Human individuality, scientific psychology, and William Stern’s critical personalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Lamiell, J. T. (2006). La psychologie des “traits” dans le cadre de la recherche “néo-galtonien” au vingtieme siecle: Comment elle est censée fonctionner, et pourquoi elle ne fonctionne vraiment pas. Psychologie Francais, 51, 337–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lamiell, J. T. (2007). On sustaining critical discourse with mainstream personality investigators: Problems and prospects. Theory and Psychology, 17, 169–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Molenaar, P. C. M. (2004). A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: Bringing the person back into scientific psychology, this time forever. Measurement, 2, 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Popper, K. (2002). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge. (Original work published 1959)Google Scholar
  22. Porter, T. M. (1986). The rise of statistical thinking: 1820–1900. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Sanford, N. (1963). Personality: Its place in psychology. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science (pp. 488–592). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  24. Skaggs, E. B. (1945). Personalistic psychology as science. Psychological Review, 52, 234–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stern, W. (1900). Über Psychologie der individuellen Differenzen (Ideen zu einer ‘differentiellen Psychologie’). Leipzig: Barth.Google Scholar
  26. Stern, W. (1911). Die Differentielle Psychologie in ihren methodischen Grundlagen. Leipzig: Barth.Google Scholar
  27. Stern, W. (1927). Selbstdarstellung. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Philosophie der Gegenwart in Selbstdarstellung (pp. 128–184). Leipzig: Barth.Google Scholar
  28. Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Individuality. New York: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyGeorgetown UniversityWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations