The assumptions expressed in the lexical hypothesis might also contribute to the fact that the prevailing strategies of the scientific explanation of individual differences largely follow structures that are deeply rooted in everyday psychology. 2003) and the “primary source of data” in personality psychology (Schwarz 1999, p. Assessments by laypeople have become the standard methods of investigation (Baumeister et al. The lexical hypothesis also suggests that enquiring about the everyday psychological ideas that people develop of themselves and of other individuals could be a suitable method for the scientific measurement of personality (Block 2010 Westen 1996). In English and some other languages, the reduction of the pertinent lexical repertoires to five major dimensions has received the most support in Western scientific communities (Goldberg 1993 John et al. This so-called lexical hypothesis, first articulated by Galton ( 1884), has provided a stringent rationale for using the lexica of human languages as finite sources of information to unravel a few major dimensions of individual differences (Allport and Odbert 1936 Cattell 1943). This “break through” was made possible by the assumption that people encode in their everyday languages all those individual differences that they perceive as most salient in everyday encounters and that they consider to be socially relevant. The “discovery” of five major dimensions of individual differences is considered a milestone in modern Western psychology (De Raad 1998 Digman 1990 Goldberg 1990). These meta-theoretical and methodological challenges are characteristic of contemporary personality psychology and of taxonomic personality research in particular (Uher 2008a, b, 2011a, b Uher, Methodological approaches to personality taxonomies: The Behavioural Repertoire x Environmental Situations Approach-A non-lexical alternative, unpublished). This also includes rethinking the very reduction of real phenomena into scientific phenomena (Utz 2005). Therefore, they should be explicated to enable researchers to constantly scrutinise all levels from epistemology and ontology up to the specific theories about the phenomena studied (Toomela 2011).
Meta-theories and methodologies are the rules that govern the effective practices of sciences. In other words, “it is the theory which decides what can be observed” (Einstein to Heisenberg in 1926, cited in Heisenberg 1989, p. “Alles Faktische ist schon Theorie”-all facts are already theory (Goethe 1907, p.
Hence, the first step of reducing real elements into facts is already a theoretical decision (Weber 1949, p. Meta-theories determine what is considered data in a particular field (in a particular historical time Kuhn 1962), and how the thus-defined data can be analysed and interpreted (Køppe 2012 Wagoner 2009). 84, analysing the philosophy of science of Marx 1867 Køppe 2012 Weber 1949). They determine which elements of real phenomena can be reduced to precisely those subsets of elements that are considered relevant to and defining of concrete scientific phenomena and the ways in which they can be reduced (Althusser and Balibar 1970, p. Ten desiderata for future research are outlined to overcome the current paradigmatic fixations that are substantially hampering intellectual innovation and progress in the field.Īll sciences have meta-theories. The current state of knowledge about the lexical hypothesis is reviewed, and implications for personality psychology are discussed. These findings seriously challenge the widespread assumptions about the causal and universal status of the phenomena described by prominent personality models. Meta-theoretical analyses of these different kinds of phenomena and their distinct natures, commonalities, differences, and interrelations reveal that personality psychology’s focus on lexical approaches, assessment methods, and trait concepts entails a) erroneous meta-theoretical assumptions about what the phenomena being studied actually are, and thus how they can be analysed and interpreted, b) that contemporary personality psychology is largely based on everyday psychological knowledge, and c) a fundamental circularity in the scientific explanations used in trait psychology.
Thus far, personality psychologists largely explored only the former, but have seriously neglected studying the latter. One of the field’s most important guiding scientific assumptions, the lexical hypothesis, is analysed from meta-theoretical viewpoints to reveal that it explicitly describes two sets of phenomena that must be clearly differentiated: 1) lexical repertoires and the representations that they encode and 2) the kinds of phenomena that are represented. This article develops a comprehensive philosophy-of-science for personality psychology that goes far beyond the scope of the lexical approaches, assessment methods, and trait concepts that currently prevail.
0 kommentar(er)
