Comparing individuals within and across situations, groups and species: Metatheoretical and methodological foundations demonstrated in primate behaviour
Abstract
Individuals are explored in various kinds of phenomena and contexts. But how can scientists compare individual variations across phenomena with heterogeneous properties that require different methods for their exploration? How can measurements of individual variations be made directly comparable between different studies, groups of individuals or even species? This research applies the Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals (TPS-Paradigm) to elaborate metatheoretical concepts and analytical methodologies for quantitative comparisons of individual variations within and across situations, groups and species using behavioural phenomena as examples. Established concepts from personality psychology, differential psychology and cross-cultural and cross-species research are systematically integrated into coherent frameworks and extended by adding concepts for comparing individual-specific variations (i.e., " personality ") between species. Basic principles for establishing the functional comparability of behavioural and situational categories are elaborated while considering that individuals from different groups and species often show different behaviours and encounter different situations and therefore cannot be studied with identical variables as is done in assessment-based research. Building on these principles, the chapter explores methodologies for the statistical analyses of the configurational comparability of constructs and of mean-level differences between groups and species. It highlights that situational properties are crucial for quantitative comparisons of individual variations. Fundamental differences between observational methods and assessment methods are explored, revealing serious limitations and fallacies inherent to comparisons of individuals on the basis of assessments. Implementations of the methodological principles and concepts presented are illustrated with behavioural data from four primate species (weeper capuchins, mandrills, toque macaques and rhesus macaques).
Full-text (PDF)
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3848.8169 ·Available from: Jana Uher, Jun 28, 2015Other full-text sources
Uher, J. (2015). Comparing individuals within and across situations, groups and species: Metatheoretical
and methodological foundations demonstrated in primate behaviour. In D. Emmans & A. Laihinen (Eds.).
Comparative Neuropsychology and Brain Imaging (Vol. 2), Series Neuropsychology: An Interdisciplinary
Approach. (chapter 14, pp. 223-284). Berlin: Lit Verlag. ISBN 978-3-643-90653-3
Comparing individuals within and across situations, groups
and species: Metatheoretical and methodological foundations
demonstrated in primate behaviour
Jana Uher
1,2
Correspondence*:
1, *
The London School of Economics and Political Science, St Clemens Building, Houghton
Street, London WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom
2
Comparative Differential and Personality Psychology, Free University Berlin, Germany
Individuals are explored in various kinds of phenomena and contexts. But how can scientists
compare individual variations across phenomena with heterogeneous properties that require
different methods for their exploration? How can measurements of individual variations be
made directly comparable between different studies, groups of individuals or even species?
This research applies the Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on
Individuals (TPS-Paradigm) to elaborate metatheoretical concepts and analytical
methodologies for quantitative comparisons of individual variations within and across
situations, groups and species using behavioural phenomena as examples. Established
concepts from personality psychology, differential psychology and cross-cultural and cross-
species research are systematically integrated into coherent frameworks and extended by
adding concepts for comparing individual-specific variations (i.e., “personality”) between
species. Basic principles for establishing the functional comparability of behavioural and
situational categories are elaborated while considering that individuals from different groups
and species often show different behaviours and encounter different situations and therefore
cannot be studied with identical variables as is done in assessment-based research. Building
on these principles, the chapter explores methodologies for the statistical analyses of the
configurational comparability of constructs and of mean-level differences between groups
and species. It highlights that situational properties are crucial for quantitative comparisons of
individual variations. Fundamental differences between observational methods and
assessment methods are explored, revealing serious limitations and fallacies inherent to
comparisons of individuals on the basis of assessments. Implementations of the
methodological principles and concepts presented are illustrated with behavioural data from
four primate species (weeper capuchins, mandrills, toque macaques and rhesus macaques).
Keywords:
Cross-species and cross-cultural comparative methodology;
Scientific measurement and quantification;
Configurational comparability/ structural or construct equivalence;
Patterning and positioning effects;
Limitations of assessment methods;
Weeper capuchin (Cebus olivaceus), mandrill (Mandrillus sphinx), toque macaque
(Macaca sinica), Rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta);
Sex/ gender differences and species differences.
***
Notes.
A previous version of this chapter was entitled “An integrative meta-theoretical framework for
research on individual behaviour in context—situations, populations, species”. This research
was funded by a grant from the German Research Foundation (DFG; UH-249/1-1).
Uher, J. (2015). Comparing individuals within and across situations, groups and species: Metatheoretical
and methodological foundations demonstrated in primate behaviour. In D. Emmans & A. Laihinen (Eds.).
Comparative Neuropsychology and Brain Imaging (Vol. 2), Series Neuropsychology: An Interdisciplinary
Approach. (chapter 14, pp. 223-284). Berlin: Lit Verlag. ISBN 978-3-643-90653-3
References
Adams, D. K. & Zener, K. E. (1935). Translators’ preface. In K. Lewin (1935). A
dynamic theory of personality. Selected papers. New York and London:
McGraw Hill.
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York, NY:
Macmillan.
Allport, G. W., & Vernon, P. E. (1933). Studies in expressive movement. New York:
Macmillan.
Altmann, J. (1974). Observational study of behavior: Sampling methods. Behaviour,
49, 227-267.
Arro, G. (2013). Peeking into personality test answers: Inter- and intraindividual
variety in item interpretations. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral
Science, 47, 56-76. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and
action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of
self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior?
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 396-403.
Bergman, L. R. & Trost, K. (2006). The person-oriented versus the variable-oriented
approach: Are they complementary, opposites, or exploring different worlds?
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52, 377–389.
Biesanz, J. C., & Human, L. J. (2010). The cost of forming more accurate
impressions: Accuracy motivated perceivers see the personality of others
more distinctively but less normatively. Psychological Science, 24, 589-594.
Blaffer-Hrdy, S. (2009). Mothers and others: the evolutionary origins of mutual
understanding. Cambridge MA: Belknap Press.
Block, J. (2010). The five-factor framing of personality and beyond: Some
ruminations. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 2–25.
Blurton Jones, N. G. (1967). An ethological study of same aspects of social
behaviour of children in nursery school. In D. Morris (Ed.), Primate ethology
(pp. 347–368). London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.
Blurton Jones, N. G. (1972). Categories of child-child interaction. In N. G. Blurton
Jones (Ed.), Ethological studies of child behavior (pp. 97-127). London:
Cambridge University Press.
Boesch, C., Hohmann, G. & Marchant, L. (2002). Behavioural diversity in
chimpanzees and bonobos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buss , D. M. (1999). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Buss, D. M. & Craik, K. H. (1983). The act frequency approach to personality.
Psychological Review, 90, 105-126.
Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modelling with EQS and EQS/Windows:
Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of
factor covariance and mean structures: the issue of partial measurement
invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456–466.
Uher, J. (2015). Comparing individuals within and across situations, groups and species: Metatheoretical
and methodological foundations demonstrated in primate behaviour. In D. Emmans & A. Laihinen (Eds.).
Comparative Neuropsychology and Brain Imaging (Vol. 2), Series Neuropsychology: An Interdisciplinary
Approach. (chapter 14, pp. 223-284). Berlin: Lit Verlag. ISBN 978-3-643-90653-3
Campbell, N. A., & Reece, J. B. (2005). Biology (7
th
Ed.). New York, NY: Benjamin
Cummings.
Capitanio, J. P. (2004). Personality factors between and within species. In B. Tierry,
M. Singh & W. Kaumanns (Eds.) Macaque societies (pp. 13–33). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cattell, R. B. (1946). The description and measurement of personality. New York:
World Book.
Cervone, D., Shadel, W. G., & Jencius, S. (2001). Social-cognitive theory of
personality assessment. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 33-
51.
Clarke, A. S., & Boinski, S. (1995). Temperament in nonhuman primates. American
Journal of Primatology, 37, 103-125.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2
nd
ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Conner, T. S., Barrett, L. F., Tugade, M. M. & Tennen, H. (2007). Idiographic
personality: The theory and practice of experience sampling. In R. W.
Robins, R. C. Fraley, & R. Kreuger (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in
Personality Psychology (pp.79 – 98). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Connolly, P. (1998). Racism, gender identities and young children: Social relations in
a multi-ethnic, inner-city primary school. London, UK: Routledge.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests.
Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.
Darwin, C. R. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the
preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London, UK: John
Murray.
de Weerth, C., van Geert, P., & Hoitink, H. (1999). Intra-individual variability in infant
behavior. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1102–1112. cite
Diriwächter, R., Valsiner, J., & Sauck, C. (2004). Microgenesis in making sense of
oneself: Constructive recycling of personality inventory items. Forum
Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6, Art. 11.
Dunbar, R. (1996). Grooming, gossip, and the evolution of language. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Epstein, S. (1979). The stability of behavior: I. On predicting most of the people much
of the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1097-1126.
Epstein, S. (1980). The stability of behavior: II. Implications for psychological
research. American Psychologist, 35, 790-806.
Fahrenberg, J., Myrtek, M., Pawlik, K. & Perrez, M. (2007). Ambulatory assessment –
monitoring behavior in daily life settings. A behavioral-scientific challenge for
psychology. European Journal of Personality Assessment, 23, 206-213.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible
statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical
sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.
Fleeson, W. (2001). Towards a structure- and process-integrated view of personality:
Traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80, 1011-1027.
Fragaszy, D. M., Visalberghi, E., & Fedigan, L. (2004). The complete capuchin.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P., & the ABC Group. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us
smart. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Uher, J. (2015). Comparing individuals within and across situations, groups and species: Metatheoretical
and methodological foundations demonstrated in primate behaviour. In D. Emmans & A. Laihinen (Eds.).
Comparative Neuropsychology and Brain Imaging (Vol. 2), Series Neuropsychology: An Interdisciplinary
Approach. (chapter 14, pp. 223-284). Berlin: Lit Verlag. ISBN 978-3-643-90653-3
Gillespie, A., Howarth, C., & Cornish, F. (2012). Four problems for researchers using
social categories. Culture and Psychology, 18, 391-402.
Goldberg, L. R. (1982). ‘From Ace to Zombie: Some explorations in the language of
personality’. In C. D. Spielberger & J. N. Butcher (Eds), Advances in
Personality Assessment, Vol. 1, pp. 203-234, Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
Hammersley, M. (2013). The myth of research-based policy and practice. London:
Sage
Hammock, E. A., & Young, L. Y. (2005). Microsatellite instability generates diversity
in brain and sociobehavioral traits. Science, 308, 1630-1634.
Hartmann, N. (1964). Der Aufbau der realen Welt. Grundriss der allgemeinen
Kategorienlehre (3. Aufl.). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Peng, K., & Greenholtz, J. (2002). What's wrong with
cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales?: The reference-group
effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 903-918.
Herrmann, E., Hare, B., Cissewski, J., & Tomasello, M. (2011). A comparison of
temperament in nonhuman apes and human infants. Developmental Science,
14, 1393–1405.
Hinde, R. A. (1974). Biological bases of human social behavior. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Hinde, R. A. (1982). Ethology: Its nature and relations with other sciences. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Hofsteede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors,
institutions and organizations across nations. California, CA.: Sage
Publications.
Howarth, C. (2009). “I hope we won’t have to understand racism one day”:
Researching or reproducing ‘race’ in Social research? British Journal of
Social Psychology, 48, 407-426.
JCGM, Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology. (2008). International vocabulary of
metrology – Basic and general concepts and associated terms (VIM) (3rd
ed.), Working Group 2 (Eds.), Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology.
Jovchelovitch, S. (2007). Knowledge in context: Representations, community and
culture. London, UK: Routledge.
Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2008). Psychological testing: Principles,
applications, and issues, (7
th
ed). Belmont, CA: Thompson. Wadsworth.
King, J. E., Weiss, A., & Sisco, M. M. (2008). Aping humans: Age and sex effects in
chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and human (Homo sapiens) personality.
Journal of Comparative Psychology, 122, 418-27.
Kluckhohn, C., Murray, H. A., & Schneider, D. M. (1953). Personality in nature,
society, and culture. New York, NY: Knopf.
Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace, &
World.
Lahlou, S. (1996). Propagation of social representations. Journal for the Theory of
Social Behaviour, 26, 157–175.
Lahlou, S. (1998). Penser-manger. Paris, France: Les Presses Universitaires de
France.
Lahlou, S. (2001). Functional aspects of social representations. In K. Deaux & G.
Philogene (Eds.), Representations of the social: Bridging theoretical
traditions (pp.131–146). Oxford: Blackwell.
Uher, J. (2015). Comparing individuals within and across situations, groups and species: Metatheoretical
and methodological foundations demonstrated in primate behaviour. In D. Emmans & A. Laihinen (Eds.).
Comparative Neuropsychology and Brain Imaging (Vol. 2), Series Neuropsychology: An Interdisciplinary
Approach. (chapter 14, pp. 223-284). Berlin: Lit Verlag. ISBN 978-3-643-90653-3
Lazarus, A. A. (1981). The practice of multimodal therapy : systematic,
comprehensive, effective psychotherapy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lazarus, R. S. (2000). Towards better research on stress and coping. American
Psychologist, 55, 665-673.
Lehner, P. N. (1998). Handbook of ethological methods. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (1989). On the empirical identification of dimensions for
cross-cultural comparisons. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 20, 133-
151.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Li, W., Moallem, I., Paller, K. A. & Gottfried, J. A. (2007). Subliminal smells can guide
social preferences. Psychological Science, 18, 1044-1049.
Lloyd, B. & Duveen, G. (1992). Gender identities and education: The impact of
starting school. London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
Martin, P. & Bateson. P. (2007) Measuring behaviour: An introductory guide (3
rd
ed).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McAdams, D. P. (1985). Power, intimacy, and the life story: Personological inquiries
into identity. New York, NY: Guilford.
McCrae, R.R., Terracciano, A., & 79 Members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures
Project (2005). Personality profiles of cultures: Aggregate personality traits.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 407–425.
McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., Realo, A., & Allik, J. (2007a). Climatic warmth and
national wealth: Some culture-level determinants of national character
stereotypes. European Journal of Personality, 21, 953–976.
McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., Realo, A., & Allik, J. (2007b). On the validity of
culture-level personality and stereotypes scores. European Journal of
Personality, 21, 987–991.
Mehl, M. R., Vazire, S., Ramírez-Esparza, N., Slatcher, R. B., & Pennebaker, J. W.
(2007). Are women really more talkative than men? Science, 317, 82.
Menon, G., & Yorkston, E. A. (2000). The use of memory and contextual cues in the
formation of behavioral frequency judgments. In A. A. Stone, J. S. Turkkan,
C. A. Bachrach, J. B. Jobe, H. S. Kurtzman & V. S. Cain (Eds.) The science
of self-report, (pp. 63-79). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.
Michell, J. (2011). Qualitative research meets the ghost of Pythagoras. Theory &
Psychology, 21, 241-259.
Michell, J., (2012). The constantly recurring argument: Inferring quantity from order.
Theory & Psychology, 22, 255-271.
Millikan, R. (1993). White queen psychology and other essays for Alice. Bradford:
MIT Press.
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York, NY: Wiley.
Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In: D. Magnusson, & N.
S. Endler (Eds.). Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional
psychology, (pp. 333-352). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
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.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Ayduk, O. (2007). Introduction to personality: Toward an
integrative science of the person (8
th
ed.). Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley & Sons.
Uher, J. (2015). Comparing individuals within and across situations, groups and species: Metatheoretical
and methodological foundations demonstrated in primate behaviour. In D. Emmans & A. Laihinen (Eds.).
Comparative Neuropsychology and Brain Imaging (Vol. 2), Series Neuropsychology: An Interdisciplinary
Approach. (chapter 14, pp. 223-284). Berlin: Lit Verlag. ISBN 978-3-643-90653-3
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Mendoza-Denton, R. (2002). Situation-behavior profiles as
a locus of consistency in personality. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 11, 50-54.
Molenaar, P. C. (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.
Murray-Close, D., & Ostrov, J. M. (2009). A longitudinal study of forms and functions
of aggressive behavior in early childhood. Child Development, 80, 828-842.
Ogden, C. K. (1932). Bentham's theory of fictions. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Omi, Y. (2012). Tension between the theoretical thinking and the empirical method:
Is it an inevitable fate for psychology? Integrative Psychological and
Behavioral Science, 46, 118-127.
Otovic, P., Partan, S. R., Bryant, J. B., & Hutchinson, E. (2014). Let’s call a truce ...
for now: The silent bared-teeth face expression in mandrills (Mandrillus
sphinx) during baseline and post-conflict conditions. Ethology, 120, 1118–
1127.
Pellegrini, A. D. (2011). "In the eye of the beholder”: Sex bias in observations and
ratings of students’ aggression. Educational Researcher, 40, 281 - 286.
Perugini, M. & Richetin, J. (2007). In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
European Journal of Personality, 21, 977–981.
Piccione, G., Marafioti, S., Giannetto,C., Di Pietro, S., Quartuccio, M., & Fazio, F.
(2014). Comparison of daily distribution of rest/activity in companion cats and
dogs. Biological Rhythm Research, 45, 615-623.
Pollet, T. V. Tybur, J. M. Frankenhuis, W. E. F., & Rickard, I. J. (2014). What can
cross-cultural correlations teach us about human nature? Human Nature, 25,
410–429.
Preuschoft, S. & van Hooff, J. A. R. A. M. (1995). Homologizing primate facial
displays: A critical review of methods. Folia Primatologica, 65, 121-137.
Preuschoft, S. (1992). "Laughter" and "smile" in Barbary macaques (Macaca
sylvanus). Ethology, 91, 200-236.
Robinson, W. S. (1950). Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals.
American Sociological Review, 15, 351–357.
Rosenbaum, P. J. & Valsiner, J. (2011). The un-making of a method: From rating
scales to the study of psychological processes. Theory and Psychology, 21,
47-65.
Rothschuh, K. E. (1963). Theorie des Organsimus. Bios – Psyche – Pathos (2. erw.
Aufl.). München: Urban & Schwarzenberg.
Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Rotter, J. B. (1981). The psychological situation in social learning theory. In D.
Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a psychology of situations: An interactional
perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schacter, D. (1999). The seven sins of memory: Insights from psychology and
cognitive neuroscience. American Psychologist 54, 182-203.
Schacter, D. L. & Addis, D. R. (2007). Constructive memory: Ghosts of past and
future. Nature, 445, 27.
Schneider, D. J. (2005). The psychology of stereotyping. New York: Guilford Press.
Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answer. American
Psychologist, 54, 93–105.
Uher, J. (2015). Comparing individuals within and across situations, groups and species: Metatheoretical
and methodological foundations demonstrated in primate behaviour. In D. Emmans & A. Laihinen (Eds.).
Comparative Neuropsychology and Brain Imaging (Vol. 2), Series Neuropsychology: An Interdisciplinary
Approach. (chapter 14, pp. 223-284). Berlin: Lit Verlag. ISBN 978-3-643-90653-3
Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Wright, J. C. (1994). Intra-individual 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.
Shweder, R. A. & D'Andrade, R. G. (1980). The systematic distortion hypothesis. In
R. A. Shweder (Ed.). Fallible judgment in behavioral research: New directions
for methodology of social and behavioral science (Vol. 4, pp. 37–58). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shweder, R. A. & Sullivan, M. A. (1990). The semiotic subject of cultural psychology.
In L. A. Pervin (Ed.). Handbook of personality, (pp. 399 - 416). New York,
NY: Guilford.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Smith, P. K. & Connolly, K. J. (1972). Patterns of play and social interaction in
preschool children. In N. G. Blurton Jones (Ed.). Ethological studies of child
behavior (pp. 65-95). London, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, P. K. & Connolly, K. J. (1980). The ecology of preschool behaviour. London,
U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, P. K. (1973). Temporal clusters and individual differences in the behaviour of
preschool children. In R. P. Michael & J. H. Crook (Eds.). Comparative
ecology and behaviour of primates, (pp. 751-798). London, U.K.: Academic
Press.
Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2011). Age differences in
personality traits from 10 to 65: Big-Five domains and facets in a large cross-
sectional sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 330-
348.
Subramanian, S. V., Jones, K., Kaddour, A., & Krieger, N. (2009). Revisiting
Robinson: The perils of individualistic and ecologic fallacy. International
Journal of Epidemiology, 38, 342–360.
Sussman, A.F., Ha, J.C., Bentson, K.L., & Crockett, C. M. (2013) Temperament in
rhesus, long-tailed, and pigtailed macaques varies by species and sex.
American Journal of Primatology, 75, 303–313.
Terracciano, A., Abdel-Khalek, A. M., Adám, N., Adamovová, L., et al., (2005).
National character does not reflect mean personality trait levels in 49
cultures. Science, 310, 96-100.
Tetley, C. L. & O’Hara, S. J. (2012) Ratings of animal personality as a tool for
improving the breeding, management and welfare of zoo mammals. Animal
Welfare, 21, 463-476.
Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and
cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of
Research in Personality, 34, 397-423.
Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1993). A dynamic systems approach to the development
of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Thierry, B, (2000). Covariation of conflict management patterns across macaque
species. In F. Aureli & F. B. M. de Waal (Eds). Natural conflict resolution, (pp.
106-128). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Thierry, B, (2007). Unity in diversity: Lessons from macaque societies. Evolutionary
Anthropology, 16, 224-238.
Uher, J. (2015). Comparing individuals within and across situations, groups and species: Metatheoretical
and methodological foundations demonstrated in primate behaviour. In D. Emmans & A. Laihinen (Eds.).
Comparative Neuropsychology and Brain Imaging (Vol. 2), Series Neuropsychology: An Interdisciplinary
Approach. (chapter 14, pp. 223-284). Berlin: Lit Verlag. ISBN 978-3-643-90653-3
Thorndike, E. L. (1939). On the fallacy of imputing the correlations found for groups
to the individuals or smaller groups composing them. American Journal of
Psychology, 52, 122-124.
Tomasello, M. (1999). The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Harvard University
Press.
Toomela, A. (2010). Modern mainstream psychology is the best? – Noncumulative,
historically blind, fragmented, atheoretical. In A. Toomela & J. Valsiner, J.
(Eds.). Methodological thinking in psychology: 60 years gone astray? (1 - 26).
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.
Toomela, A. (2011). Travel into a fairy land: A critique of modern qualitative and
mixed methods psychologies. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral
Science, 45, 21-47.
Uher, J. (2008a). Three methodological core issues of comparative personality
research. European Journal of Personality, 22, 475-496.
Uher, J. (2008b). Comparative personality research: Methodological approaches.
European Journal of Personality, 22, 427-455.
Uher, J. (2011a). Individual behavioral phenotypes: An integrative metatheoretical
framework. Why 'behavioral syndromes' are not analogues of 'personality'.
Developmental Psychobiology, 53, 521–548.
Uher, J. (2011b). Personality in nonhuman primates: What can we learn from human
personality psychology? In A. Weiss, J. King, & L. Murray (Eds.). Personality
and Temperament in Nonhuman Primates (pp. 41-76). New York, NY:
Springer.
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
Uher, J. (2014). Fundamental challenges of contemporary "personality" research.
Physics of Life Reviews, 11, 695-696.
Uher, J. (2015a). Conceiving “personality": Psychologists’ challenges and basic
fundamentals of the Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for
Research on Individuals. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science,
49(3). DOI: 10.1007/s12124-014-9283-1.
Uher, J. (2015b). Developing “personality” taxonomies: Metatheoretical and
methodological rationales underlying selection approaches, methods of data
generation and reduction principles. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral
Science, 49(3). DOI: 10.1007/s12124-014-9280-4.
Uher, J. (2015c). Interpreting „personality“ taxonomies: Why previous models cannot
capture individual-specific experiencing, behaviour, functioning and
development. Major taxonomic tasks still lay ahead. Integrative Psychological
and Behavioral Science, 49(3). DOI: 10.1007/s12124-014-9281-3
Uher, J. (2015d). Agency enabled by the Psyche: Explorations using the
Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on
Individuals. Annals of Theoretical Psychology, 12, 177-228.
Uher, J. (2016). Exploring the workings of the psyche: Metatheoretical and
methodological foundations. Annals of Theoretical Psychology, 13, xx-xx.
Uher, J. (submitted). Principles of measurement and quantification in the physical
sciences, life sciences, social sciences and in psychology.
Uher, J. (2015). Comparing individuals within and across situations, groups and species: Metatheoretical
and methodological foundations demonstrated in primate behaviour. In D. Emmans & A. Laihinen (Eds.).
Comparative Neuropsychology and Brain Imaging (Vol. 2), Series Neuropsychology: An Interdisciplinary
Approach. (chapter 14, pp. 223-284). Berlin: Lit Verlag. ISBN 978-3-643-90653-3
Uher, J., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Personality assessment in the Great Apes:
Comparing ecologically valid behavior measures, behavior ratings, and
adjective ratings. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 821-838.
Uher, J., Addessi, E., & Visalberghi, E. (2013a). Contextualised behavioural
measurements of personality differences obtained in behavioural tests and
social observations in adult capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Journal of
Research in Personality, 47, 427-444.
Uher, J., Asendorpf, J. B., & Call, J. (2008). Personality in the behavior of Great
Apes: Temporal stability, cross-situational consistency and coherence in
response. Animal Behaviour, 75, 99-112.
Uher, J., Werner, C. S., & Gosselt, K. (2013b). From observations of individual
behaviour to social representations of personality: Developmental pathways,
attribution biases, and limitations of questionnaire methods. Journal of
Research in Personality, 47, 647–667.
van de Vijver, F. J. R. & Poortinga, Y. H. (1997). Towards an integrated analysis of
bias in cross-cultural assessment. European Journal of Psychological
Assessment, 13, 29-37.
van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997a). Methods and data analysis of
comparative research. In J. W. Berry,Y. H. Poortinga, & J. Pandey (Eds.),
Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 257-300).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997b). Methods and data analysis for cross-
cultural research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Poortinga, Y. H. (2002). Structural Equivalence in Multilevel
Research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 141, 141-156.
van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Tanzer, N. K. (2004). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural
assessment: An overview. European Review of Applied Psychology, 54, 119-
135.
van Geert, P. & van Dijk, M. (2002). Focus on variability: New tools to study intra-
individual variability in developmental data. Infant Behavior & Development,
25, 340-374.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the
measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and
recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research
Methods, 3, 4-70.
Visalberghi E., Valenzano, D.R., & Preuschoft S. (2006). Facial displays in tufted
capuchins. International Journal of Primatology, 27, 1689-1707.
von Uexküll, J. (1909). Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere. Berlin: Springer.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Whitehead, A. N. (1929). Process and reality. New York: Harper.
Wright, J. C. & Mischel, W. (1987). A conditional approach to dispositional
constructs: The local predictability of social behavior. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 55, 454-469.
Wright, J. C., & Zakriski, A. L. (2003). When syndromal similarity obscures functional
dissimilarity: Distinctive evoked environments of externalizing and mixed
syndrome children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 516-
527.
- CitationsCitations3
- ReferencesReferences137
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Introspection is considered a key method for exploring the workings of the psyche because psychical phenomena are accessible only by the individual him- or herself. But this epistemological concept, despite its importance, remained unclear and contentious. Its scientificity is often questioned, but still introspective findings from psychophysics are widely accepted as the ultimate proof of the quantifiability of psychical phenomena. Not everything going on in individuals’ minds is considered introspection, but clear criteria that qualify explorations as introspective are still missing. This research applies the Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals (TPS-Paradigm) to metatheoretically define the peculiarities of psychical phenomena of which various kinds are differentiated and to derive therefrom basic methodological principles and criteria applicable to any investigation. Building on these foundations, the TPS-Paradigm introduces the concepts of introquestion versus extroquestion and reveals that introspection cannot be clearly differentiated from extrospection and that psychophysical experiments and some first-person perspective methods are not introspective as often assumed. The chapter explores the challenges that arise from the fact that psychical phenomena can be explored only indirectly through individuals’ behavioural and semiotic externalisations and scrutinises what, when, where and how to externalise in introquestive explorations. The basic principles and criteria elaborated also allow for determining which kind of psychical phenomenon can be explored by using which kind of method for establishing an appropriate phenomenon-methodology match.
- [Show description] [Hide description] DESCRIPTION: "Personality" differences have already been demonstrated in the behaviour of many species. But how similar or distinct are the "personality" differences described for different species? In her new study, Jana Uher introduces a comprehensive research methodology for systematic cross-species comparisons. Their application in four monkey species from four different continents reveals many commonalities but also exiting species differences.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Behaviour is central to many fields, but metatheoretical definitions specifying the most basic assumptions about what is considered behaviour and what is not are largely lacking. This transdisciplinary research explores the challenges in defining behaviour, highlighting anthropocentric biases and a frequent lack of differentiation from physiological and psychical phenomena. To meet these challenges, the article elaborates a metatheoretical definition of behaviour that is applicable across disciplines and that allows behaviours to be differentiated from other kinds of phenomena. This definition is used to explore the phenomena of language and to scrutinise whether and under what conditions language can be considered behaviour and why. The metatheoretical concept of two different levels of meaning conveyed in human language is introduced, highlighting that language inherently relies on behaviours and that the content of what-is-being-said, in and of itself, can constitute (interpersonal) behaviour under particular conditions. The analyses reveal the ways in which language meaningfully extends human's behavioural possibilities, pushing them far beyond anything enabled by non-language behaviours. These novel metatheoretical concepts can complement and expand on existing theories about behaviour and language and contribute a novel piece of theoretical explanation regarding the crucial role that language has played in human evolution.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.
This publication is from a journal that may support self archiving.
Learn more