Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences

Living Edition
| Editors: Virgil Zeigler-Hill, Todd K. Shackelford


Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_818-1


Psychological interviews, whether clinical or research oriented, are constituted by an interpersonal, social context in which epistemic and ethical purposes are at stake. Interviews are commonly categorized as (1) structured, (2) unstructured, or (3) semistructured. These different formats have their pros and cons, both in relation to epistemic and/or ethical purposes and/or methodological issues. The recent developments of qualitative research methods in psychology have initiated and raised epistemological concerns over what theory of science would be most appropriate for a psychological science in which interviews are used as a data collection procedure. Such concerns can be directly linked to the three different interview formats and, in a theoretical sense, to the different theoretical perspectives in psychology.


First-person Face-to-face Interpersonal Introspection Empathy Phenomenology 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington: American Psychiatric Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Psychological Association (APA). (2010). Psychology as a core science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) discipline: Report of the American Psychological Association 2009 presidential task force on the future of psychology as a STEM discipline. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  3. Churchill, S. D. (2010). Second person perspectivity in observing and understanding emotional expression. In L. Embree, M. Barber, & T. J. Nenon (Eds.), Phenomenology 2010, Vol. 5: Selected essays from North America. Part 2: Phenomenology beyond philosophy (pp. 81–106). Bucharest/Paris: Zeta Books/Arghos-Diffusion.Google Scholar
  4. Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject: Historical origins of psychological research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Danziger, K. (2001). Introspection: History of the concept. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral science (pp. 7888–7891). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Englander, M. (2012). The interview: Data collection in descriptive phenomenological human scientific research. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 43(1), 13–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Englander, M. (2015). Selfhood, empathy, and dignity. In S. Ferrarello & S. Giacchetti (Eds.), Identity and values (pp. 75–88). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. First, M. B., Gibbon, M., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (1997). Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV Axis II personality disorders (SCID-II). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.Google Scholar
  9. Fischer, C. T. (1994). Individualizing psychological assessment. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publisher.Google Scholar
  10. Gallagher, S. (1997). Mutual enlightenment: Recent phenomenology in cognitive science. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 4(3), 195–214.Google Scholar
  11. Giorgi, A. (2009). The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology: A modified Husserlian approach. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Giorgi, A. (2014). Phenomenological philosophy as the basis for a human scientific psychology. The Humanistic Psychologist, 42(3), 233–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jansson, L., & Nordgaard, J. (2016). The psychiatric interview for differential diagnosis. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kvale, S. (2006). Dominance through interviews and dialogues. Qualitative Inquiry, 12, 480–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Maurel, M. (2009). The explicitation interview: Examples and applications. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 16(10–12), 58–89.Google Scholar
  17. Norcross, J. C., & Wampold, B. E. (2011). Evidence-based therapy relationships: Research conclusions and clinical practices. Psychotherapy, 48(1), 98–102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Parnas, J., & Henriksen, M. G. (2014). Disordered self in the schizophrenia spectrum: A clinical and research perspective. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 22(5), 251–265.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Parnas, J., Moller, P., Kircher, T., Thalbitzer, J., Jansson, L., Handest, P., & Zahavi, D. (2005). EASE: Examination of anomalous self-experience. Psychopathology, 38(5), 236–258.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Petitmengin, C. (2006). Describing one’s subjective experience in the second person: An interview method for the science of consciousness. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 5, 229–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rogers, C. R. (1945). The nondirective method as a technique for social research. American Journal of Sociology, 50(4), 279–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Straus, E. W. (1966). Phenomenological psychology. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  23. Varela, F. J. (1996). Neurophenomenology: A methodological remedy for the hard problem. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 3(4), 330–349.Google Scholar
  24. Vermersch, P. (1999). Introspection as practice. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(2–3), 17–42.Google Scholar
  25. Zahavi, D. (2014). Self and other. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zimmerman, M. (2013). Interview guide for evaluating DSM-5 psychiatric disorders and the mental status examination. Philadelphia: Psych Products Press.Google Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Malmö UniversityMalmöSweden

Section editors and affiliations

  • Patrizia Velotti
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Educational SciencesUniversity of GenoaGenoaItaly
  2. 2.Sapienza University of RomeRomeItaly