Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T00:13:53.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Conceptual and Historical Perspectives

from Part I - Foundational Issues: History and Approaches to Personality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2020

By
Susan C. Cloninger
Edited by
Philip J. Corr  and
Gerald Matthews
Philip J. Corr
Affiliation:
City, University London
Gerald Matthews
Affiliation:
University of Central Florida
Get access

Summary

Personality, including abnormal as well as normal personality, is arguably the most emblematic psychological area for outsiders, but a consensual definition of the field is elusive. In attempting to study the whole functioning of individuals, personality draws from other areas of psychology: biological, cognitive, social and developmental, to list a few. It has close ties to nonpsychological areas: history and politics, literature and the arts, health sciences and others. Weaving this diversity into a coherent whole remains a conceptual challenge.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology , pp. 13 - 30
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. Oxford, UK: Harpers.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Allport, G. W. (1958). What units shall we employ? In Lindzey, G. (Ed.), Assessment of human motives (pp. 239–260). New York: Rinehart.Google Scholar
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2005a). A defence of the lexical approach to the study of personality structure. European Journal of Personality, 19, 5–24.Google Scholar
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2005b). The lexical approach to the study of personality structure: Toward the identification of cross-culturally replicable dimensions of personality variation. Journal of Personality Disorders, 19, 303–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., de Vries, R. E., Perugini, M., Gnisci, A., & Sergi, I. (2006). The HEXACO model of personality structure and indigenous lexical personality dimensions in Italian, Dutch, and English. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 851–875.Google Scholar
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Marcus, B., & De Vries, R. E. (2007). German lexical personality factors: Relations with the HEXACO model. European Journal of Personality, 21, 23–43.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Barenbaum, N. B., & Winter, D. G. (2003). Personality. In Freedheim, D. K. (Ed.), Handbook of psychology: History of psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 177–203). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Bergh, R., Akrami, N., & Ekehammar, B. (2012). The personality underpinnings of explicit and implicit generalized prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 614–621.Google Scholar
Bidney, D. (1949). Towards a psychocultural definition of the concept of personality. In Sargent, S. S. & Smith, M. W. (Eds.), Culture and personality (pp. 31–55). New York: Viking Fund.Google Scholar
Block, J., & Block, J. H. (2006). Venturing a 30-year longitudinal study. American Psychologist, 61, 315–327.Google Scholar
Bohart, A. C. (2006). The client as active self-healer. In Stricker, G. & Gold, J. (Eds.), A casebook of psychotherapy integration (pp. 214–251). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Boring, E. G. (1953). A history of introspection. Psychological Bulletin, 50, 169–189.Google Scholar
Bornstein, R. F., & Becker-Matero, N. (2011). Reconnecting psychoanalysis to mainstream psychology: Metaphor as glue. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 31, 172–184.Google Scholar
Bornstein, R. F., Denckla, C. A., & Chung, W. J. (2013). Psychodynamic models of personality. In Tennen, H., Suls, J., & Weiner, I. B. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Personality and social psychology (Vol. 5, 2nd ed., pp. 43–64). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Botterill, G., & Carruthers, P. (1999). The philosophy of psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1999). Human nature and individual differences: The evolution of personality. In Pervin, L. A. & John, O. P. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 31–56). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Caprara, G., & Vecchione, M. (2009). Personality and politics. In Corr, P. J. & Matthews, G. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology (1st ed., pp. 589–607). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carlo, G., Knight, G. P., Roesch, S. C., Opal, D., & Davis, A. (2014). Personality across cultures: A critical analysis of Big Five research and current directions. In Leong, F. T. L., Comas-Díaz, L., Nagayama Hall, G. C., McLoyd, V. C. & Trimble, J. E. (Eds.), APA handbook of multicultural psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 285–298). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Carlson, R. (1971). Where is the person in personality research? Psychological Bulletin, 75, 203–219.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1956). The methodological character of theoretical concepts. In Feigel, H. & Sciven, M. (Eds.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 1). The foundations of science and the concepts of psychology and psychoanalysis (pp. 38–76). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. (2005). Personality development: Stability and change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453–484.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1979). Personality and learning theory. The structure of personality in its environment (Vol. 1). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Churchill, S. D., & Mruk, C. J. (2014). Practicing what we preach in humanistic and positive psychology. American Psychologist, 69, 90–92.Google Scholar
Churchill, S. D., & Wertz, F. J. (2015). An introduction to phenomenological research in psychology: Historical, conceptual, and methodological foundations. In Schneider, K. J., Pierson, J. F. & Bugental, J. F. T. (Eds.), The handbook of humanistic psychology: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 275–295). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Churchland, P. M. (2010). Toward a cognitive neurobiology of the moral virtues. In Giordano, J. J. & Gordijn, B. (Eds.), Scientific and philosophical perspectives in neuroethics (pp. 146–171). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchland, P. M. (2011). Braintrust: What neuroscience tells us about morality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Churchland, P. M. (2014). The neurobiological platform for moral values. Behaviour, 151, 283–296.Google Scholar
Conway, J. B. (1992). A world of differences among psychologists. Canadian Psychology, 33, 1–24.Google Scholar
Coon, D. J. (2000). Salvaging the self in a world without soul: William James’s The principles of psychology. History of Psycholog,y 3, 83–103.Google Scholar
Corr, P. J. (2010). Automatic and controlled processes in behavioural control: Implications for personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 24, 376–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corr, P. J., & Cooper, A. J. (2016). The Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality Questionnaire (RST-PQ): Development and validation. Psychological Assessment, 28, 1427–1440.Google Scholar
Corr, P. J., & Perkins, A. M. (2006). The role of theory in the psychophysiology of personality: From Ivan Pavlov to Jeffrey Gray. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 62, 367–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costall, A. (2006). “‘Introspectionism” and the mythical origins of scientific psychology. Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal, 15, 634–654.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.Google Scholar
Davidson, R. J. (2001). Toward a biology of positive affect and compassion. In Davidson, R. J. & Harrington, A. (Eds.), Visions of compassion: Western scientists and Tibetan Buddhists examine human nature (pp. 107–130). Cary, NC: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, K. L., & Panksepp, J. (2018). The emotional foundations of personality: A neurobiological and evolutionary approach. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
de Waal, F. B. M., Churchland, P. S., Pievani, T., & Parmigiani, S. (2014). Evolved morality: The biology and philosophy of human conscience. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Dollard, J. (1949). Criteria for the life history: With analyses of six notable documents. New York: Peter Smith.Google Scholar
Donnellan, M. B., Lucas, R. E., & Fleeson, W. (2009). Introduction to personality and assessment at age 40: Reflections on the legacy of the person-situation debate and the future of person-situation integration. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 117–119.Google Scholar
Driver-Linn, E. (2003). Where is psychology going? Structural fault lines revealed by psychologists’ use of Kuhn. American Psychologist, 58, 269–278.Google Scholar
Dumont, F. (2010). A history of personality psychology: Theory, science, and research from Hellenism to the twenty-first century. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. (1980). The self-concept: A review and the proposal of an integrated theory of personality. In Staub, E. (Ed.), Personality: Basic issues and current research (pp. 82–131). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. (2007). Problems with McAdams and Pals’s (2006) proposal of a framework for an integrative theory of personality. American Psychologist, 62, 59–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. Selected papers. Psychological Issues, 1 (Monograph 1). New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield, IL: Thomas.Google Scholar
Eysenck, H. J. (1994). Normality–abnormality and the three-factor model of personality. In Strack, S. & Lorr, M. (Eds.), Differentiating normal and abnormal personality (pp. 3–25). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Eysenck, H. J. (1997). Personality and experimental psychology: The unification of psychology and the possibility of a paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1224–1237.Google Scholar
Feist, G. J. (2006). How development and personality influence scientific thought, interest, and achievement. Review of General Psychology, 10, 163–182.Google Scholar
Fleeson, W. (2004). Moving personality beyond the person-situation debate: The challenge and the opportunity of within-person variability. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 83–87.Google Scholar
Freeman, H. D., & Gosling, S. D. (2010). Personality in nonhuman primates: A review and evaluation of past research. American Journal of Primatology, 72, 653–671.Google Scholar
Freud, S. (1953). The interpretation of dreams. In Strachey, J. (Ed. & Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vols. 4, 5). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1900.)Google Scholar
Friedman, H. S., & Kern, M. L. (2014). Personality, well-being, and health. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 719–742.Google Scholar
Funder, D. C. (2009). Persons, behaviors and situations: An agenda for personality psychology in the postwar era. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 120–126.Google Scholar
Gable, S. L., & Haidt, J. (2005). What (and why) is positive psychology? Review of General Psychology, 9, 103–110.Google Scholar
Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 266–275.Google Scholar
Gergen, K. J. (2002). Beyond the empiricist/constructionist divide in social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 188–191.Google Scholar
Gergen, K. J. (2009). The problem of prejudice in plural worlds. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 29, 97–101.Google Scholar
Gifford, R. (2004). Review of the book Inventing personality: Gordon Allport and the science of selfhood. Canadian Psychology, 45, 187–188.Google Scholar
Gilbert, A. R. (1973). Bringing the history of personality theories up to date: German theories of personality stratification. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 9, 102–114.Google Scholar
Giordano, P. J. (2014). Personality as continuous stochastic process: What Western personality theory can learn from classical Confucianism. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 48, 111–128.Google Scholar
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.Google Scholar
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26–34.Google Scholar
Gooding, D. C. (2000). Experimentation. In Newton-Smith, W. (Ed.), A companion to the philosophy of science (pp. 117–126). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gray, J. A. (1970). The psychophysiological basis of introversion-extraversion. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 8, 249–266.Google Scholar
Green, C. (2004). Where is Kuhn going? American Psychologist, 59, 271–272.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J., Koole, S. L., & Pyszczynski, T. A. (2004). Handbook of experimental existential psychology. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. R., & Mitchell, S. A. (1983). Object relations in psychoanalytic theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, S. (1986). The causes and consequences of a need for self-esteem: A terror management theory. In Baumeister, R. F. (Ed.), Public self and private self (pp. 189–212). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Hampson, S. E. (2012). Personality processes: Mechanisms by which personality traits “get outside the skin.” Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 315–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampson, S. E., & Goldberg, L. R. (2006). A first large cohort study of personality trait stability over the 40 years between elementary school and midlife. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 763–779.Google Scholar
Hassin, R. R., Uleman, J. S., & Bargh, J. A. (2005). The new unconscious. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, S. J., & Buchtel, E. E. (2009). Personality: The universal and the culturally specific. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 369–394.Google Scholar
Hogan, R., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2011). Personality and the laws of history. In Chamorro-Premuzic, T., von Stumm, S. & Furnham, A. (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of individual differences (pp. 491–511). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M., Oswald, F. L., & Ock, J. (2015). Beyond the Big Five: New directions for personality research and practice in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 183–209.Google Scholar
Howard, G. S. (1991). Culture tales: A narrative approach to thinking, cross-cultural psychology, and psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 46, 187–197.Google Scholar
Ivonin, L., Chang, H. M., Díaz, M., Català, A., Chen, W., & Rauterberg, M. (2015). Beyond cognition and affect: Sensing the unconscious. Behaviour and Information Technology, 34, 220–238.Google Scholar
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. New York: Longmans, Green, and Company.Google Scholar
John, O. P., Angleitner, A., & Ostendorf, F. (1988). The lexical approach to personality: A historical review of trait taxonomic research. European Journal of Personality, 2, 171–203.Google Scholar
Kagan, J. (1994). Galen’s prophecy: Temperament in human nature. New York: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Kandel, E. R. (2006). In search of memory: The emergence of a new science of mind. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs (Vols. 1–2). New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Kihlstrom, J. F. (1987). The cognitive unconscious. Science, 237, 1445–1452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kimble, G. A. (1984). Psychology’s two cultures. American Psychologist, 39, 833–839.Google Scholar
Klee, R. (1997). Introduction to the philosophy of science: Cutting nature at its seams. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2004). The psychology of worldviews. Review of General Psychology, 8, 3–58.Google Scholar
Køppe, S. (2012). A moderate eclecticism: Ontological and epistemological issues. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 46, 1–19.Google Scholar
Kubzansky, L. D., Martin, L. T., & Buka, S. L. (2004). Early manifestations of personality and adult emotional functioning. Emotion, 4, 364–377.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lamiell, J. T. (1981). Toward an idiothetic psychology of personality. American Psychologist, 36, 276–289.Google Scholar
Lamiell, J. T. (1997). Individuals and the differences between them. In Hogan, R., Johnson, J. & Briggs, S. (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 117–141). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Langer, W. (1972). The mind of Adolph Hitler: The secret wartime report. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lavazza, A. (2015). Free will and empathy: Two revealing topics in neuroethics. Rivista Internazionale di Filosofia e Psicologia, 6, 1–3.Google Scholar
Lavazza, A., & De Caro, M. (2010). Not so fast. On some bold neuroscientific claims concerning human agency. Neuroethics, 3, 23–41.Google Scholar
Leahey, T. H. (2002). The mythical revolutions of American psychology. In Pickren, W. E. & Dewsbury, D. A. (Eds.), Evolving perspectives on the history of psychology (pp. 191–216). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Lee, S. J., & Oyserman, D. (2009). Expecting to work, fearing homelessness: The possible selves of low-income mothers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 1334–1355.Google Scholar
LeVine, R. A. (2001). Culture and personality studies, 1918–1960: Myth and history. Journal of Personality, 69, 803–818.Google Scholar
Lieberman, M. D. (2014). Why symbolic processing of affect can disrupt negative affect: Social cognitive and affective neuroscience investigation. In Todorov, A., Fiske, S. T. & Prentice, D. A. (Eds.), Social neuroscience: Toward understanding the underpinnings of the social mind (pp. 188–209). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Loehlin, J. C., & Nichols, R. C. (1976). Heredity, environment, and personality: A study of 850 sets of twins. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Loevinger, J. (1996). In defense of the individuality of personality theories. Psychological Inquiry, 7, 344–346.Google Scholar
Loevinger, J., & Knoll, E. (1983). Personality: Stages, traits, and the self. Annual Review of Psychology, 34, 195–222.Google Scholar
Loftus, G. R. (1996). Psychology will be a much better science when we change the way we analyze data. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5, 161–171.Google Scholar
Lombardo, G. P., & Foschi, R. (2002). The European origins of “personality psychology.” European Psychologist, 7, 134–145.Google Scholar
Lombardo, G. P., & Foschi, R. (2003). The concept of personality in 19th-century French and 20th-century American psychology. History of Psychology, 6, 123–142.Google Scholar
Lykken, D. T. (1995). The antisocial personalities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacCorquodale, K., & Meehl, P. E. (1948). On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables. Psychological Review, 55, 95–107.Google Scholar
Maher, B. A., & Gottesman, I. I. (2005). Deconstructing, reconstructing, preserving Paul E. Meehl’s legacy of construct validity. Psychological Assessment, 17, 415–422.Google Scholar
Markon, K. E., Krueger, R. F., & Watson, D. (2005). Delineating the structure of normal and abnormal personality: An integrative hierarchical approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 139–157.Google Scholar
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.Google Scholar
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954–969.Google Scholar
Maslow, A. H. (1976). The farther reaches of human nature (2nd ed.). New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Matthews, G., & Deary, I. J. (1998). Personality traits. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McAdams, D. P. (1996). Personality, modernity, and the storied self: A contemporary framework for studying persons. Psychological Inquiry, 7, 295–321.Google Scholar
McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61, 204–217.Google Scholar
McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed and implicit motives differ? Psychological Review, 96, 690–702.Google Scholar
McCrae, R. R. (1991). The Five-Factor Model and its assessment in clinical settings. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 399–414.Google Scholar
McCrae, R. R., Gaines, J. F., & Wellington, M. A. (2013). The Five-Factor Model in fact and fiction. In Tennen, H., Suls, J. & Weiner, I. B. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Personality and social psychology (Vol. 5, 2nd ed., pp. 65–91). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
McKay, R., Langdon, R., & Coltheart, M. (2005). “Sleights of mind”: Delusions, defences, and self-deception. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 10, 305–326.Google Scholar
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Mischel, W. (2009). From personality and assessment (1968) to personality science, 2009. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 282–290.Google Scholar
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1994). Personality psychology has two goals: Must it be two fields? Psychological Inquiry, 5, 156–158.Google Scholar
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246–268.Google Scholar
Molenaar, P. C. M. (2004). A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: Bringing the person back into scientific psychology, this time forever. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 2, 201–218.Google Scholar
Molenaar, P. C. M., & Campbell, C. G. (2009). The new person-specific paradigm in psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 112–117.Google Scholar
Monte, C. (1977). Beneath the mask: An introduction to theories of personality. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality: A clinical and experimental study of fifty men of college age. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nash, H. (1959). Metaphor in personality theory. American Psychologist, 14, 697–698.Google Scholar
Norenzayan, A., & Heine, S. J. (2005). Psychological universals: What are they and how can we know? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 763–784.Google Scholar
Northoff, G., Bermpohl, F., Schoeneich, F., & Boeker, H. (2007). How does our brain constitute defense mechanisms? First-person neuroscience and psychoanalysis. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 76, 141–153.Google Scholar
O’Connor, B. P. (2002). The search for dimensional structure differences between normality and abnormality: A statistical review of published data on personality and psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 962–982.Google Scholar
Oyserman, D. (2017). Culture three ways: Culture and subcultures within countries. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 435–463.Google Scholar
Oyserman, D., Bybee, D., & Terry, K. (2006). Possible selves and academic outcomes: How and when possible selves impel action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 188–204.Google Scholar
Ozer, D. J. (1996). The units we should employ. Psychological Inquiry, 7, 360–363.Google Scholar
Panksepp, J. (2007). Affective neuroscience and the ancestral sources of human feelings. In Cohen, H. & Stemmer, B. (Eds.), Consciousness and cognition: Fragments of mind and brain (pp. 173–188). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Peterson, D. R. (2006). Paul E. Meehl’s contributions to personality assessment. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 201–204.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, T. F., & Cherry, F. (2012). The intertwined histories of personality and social psychology. In Deaux, K. & Snyder, M. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology (pp. 13–32). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Phelps, B. J. (2015). Behavioral perspectives on personality and self. The Psychological Record, 65, 557–565.Google Scholar
Piekkola, B. (2011). Traits across cultures: A neo-Allportian perspective. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 31, 2–24.Google Scholar
Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 126–136.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Basic Books. (Original work published 1934.)Google Scholar
Poropat, A. E., & Corr, P. J. (2015). Thinking bigger: The Cronbachian paradigm and personality theory integration. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 59–69.Google Scholar
Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. (2001a). Empirical evaluation and justification of methodologies in psychological science. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 759–772.Google Scholar
Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. (2001b). Improving the science education of psychology students: Better teaching of methodology. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 173–181.Google Scholar
Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Arndt, J., & Schimel, J. (2004). Why do people need self-esteem? A theoretical and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 435–468.Google Scholar
Rennie, D. L. (2002). Experiencing psychotherapy: Grounded theory studies. In Cain, D. J. (Ed.), Humanistic psychotherapies: Handbook of research and practice (pp. 117–144). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Rennie, D. L., & Nissim, R. (2015). The grounded theory method and humanistic psychology. In Schneider, K. J., Pierson, J. F. & Bugental, J. F. T. (Eds.), The handbook of humanistic psychology: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 297–307). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Richardson, F. C., & Guignon, C. B. (2008). Positive psychology and philosophy of social science. Theory and Psychology, 18, 605–627.Google Scholar
Rogers, C. R. (1955). Persons or science: A philosophical question. American Psychologist, 10, 267–278.Google Scholar
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Rorer, L. G. (1991). Some myths of science in psychology. In Cicchetti, D. & Grove, W. M. (Eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology: Essays in honor of Paul E. Meehl (Vol. 1, pp. 61–87). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Rosen, D. H., & Luebbert, M. C. (1999). Evolution of the psyche. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J., Pott, M., Miyake, K., & Morelli, G. (2000). Attachment and culture: Security in the United States and Japan. American Psychologist, 55, 1093–1104.Google Scholar
Rychlak, J. F. (1968). A philosophy of science for personality theory. Boston, MA: Houghton, Mifflin.Google Scholar
Rychlak, J. F. (1986). Logical learning theory: A teleological alternative in the field of personality. Journal of Personality, 54, 734–762.Google Scholar
Rychlak, J. F. (1988). The psychology of rigorous humanism (2nd ed.). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Rychlak, J. F. (1997). In defense of human consciousness. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Rychlak, J. F. (2000). A psychotherapist’s lessons from the philosophy of science. American Psychologist, 55, 1126–1132.Google Scholar
Sapolsky, R. M. (2017). Behave: The biology of humans at our best and worst. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Sarason, S. B. (2002). An asocial psychology and a misdirected clinical psychology. In Pickren, W. E. & Dewsbury, D. A. (Eds.), Evolving perspectives on the history of psychology (pp. 453–469). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Saucier, G. (2009a). What are the most important dimensions of personality? Evidence from studies of descriptors in diverse languages. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 620–637.Google Scholar
Saucier, G. (2009b). Recurrent personality dimensions in inclusive lexical studies: Indications for a Big Six structure. Journal of Personality, 77, 1577–1614.Google Scholar
Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., & Toguchi, Y. (2003). Pancultural self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 60–79.Google Scholar
Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., & Vevea, J. L. (2005). Pancultural self-enhancement reloaded: A meta-analytic reply to Heine (2005). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 539–551.Google Scholar
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14.Google Scholar
Seligman, M. E. P., Railton, P., Baumeister, R. F., & Sripada, C. (2013). Navigating into the future or driven by the past. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 119–141.Google Scholar
Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410–421.Google Scholar
Shoda, Y., & Smith, R. E. (2004). Conceptualizing personality as a cognitive-affective processing system: A framework for models of maladaptive behavior patterns and change. Behavior Therapy, 35, 147–165.Google Scholar
Silverman, I., Choi, J., & Peters, M. (2007). The hunter-gatherer theory of sex differences in spatial abilities: Data from 40 countries. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 261–268.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. A., & Winterheld, H. A. (2012). Person-by-situation perspectives on close relationships. In Deaux, K. & Snyder, M. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology (pp. 493–516). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1950). Are theories of learning necessary? Psychological Review, 57, 193–216.Google Scholar
Slife, B. D., & Reber, J. S. (2009). Is there a pervasive implicit bias against theism in psychology? Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 29, 63–79.Google Scholar
Smith, L. D. (2002). On prediction and control: B. F. Skinner and the technological ideal of science. In Pickren, W. E. & Dewsbury, D. A. (Eds.), Evolving perspectives on the history of psychology (pp. 255–272). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Spinath, F. M., & Johnson, W. (2011). Behavior genetics. In Chamorro-Premuzic, T., von Stumm, S. & Furnham, A. (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of individual differences (pp. 271–304). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Staats, A. W. (1996). Behavior and personality: Psychological behaviorism. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Stagner, R. (1937). Psychology of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (2005). Unity in psychology: Possibility or pipedream. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Strobel, A., & Brocke, B. (2011). Molecular genetic aspects of personality. In Chamorro-Premuzic, T., von Stumm, S. & Furnham, A. (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of individual differences (pp. 305–329). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Swann, W. B. J., & Seyle, C. (2005). Personality psychology’s comeback and its emerging symbiosis with social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 155–165.Google Scholar
Taylor, E. (2009). The mystery of personality: A history of psychodynamic theories. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Turkheimer, E., Pettersson, E., & Horn, E. E. (2014). A phenotypic null hypothesis for the genetics of personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 515–540.Google Scholar
Uher, J. (2013). Personality psychology: Lexical approaches, assessment methods, and trait concepts reveal only half of the story – Why it is time for a paradigm shift. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 47, 1–55.Google Scholar
Uher, J. (2015). Conceiving “personality”: Psychologist’s challenges and basic fundamentals of the Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49, 398–458.Google Scholar
Watkins, J. (2000). Popper. In Newton-Smith, W. (Ed.), A companion to the philosophy of science (pp. 343–348). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Westen, D., Gabbard, G. O., & Ortigo, K. M. (2008). Psychoanalytic approaches to personality. In John, O. P., Robins, R. W. & Pervin, L. A. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 61–113). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Winter, D. G., John, O. P., Stewart, A. J., Klohnen, E. C., & Duncan, L. E. (1998). Traits and motives: Toward an integration of two traditions in personality research. Psychological Review, 105, 230–250.Google Scholar
Wolman, B. B. (1971). Does psychology need its own philosophy of science? American Psychologist, 26, 877–886.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×