The degree in which traits or constructs differ depends on many factors that effect behaviour such as emotions and experiences. Kelly’s theory has been criticised for not dealing “adequately with the possible effect of strong emotions such as love or anger on an individual’s construct system” (Birch & Hayward, 1994 p77) In idiographic terms these aspects of personality should be included as they may provide a better understanding of why a person uses particular constructs. Therefore Kelly’s theory may not be as idiographic as he believed.
Sarasan, (1972 p99) said “Allport has argued for an idiographic approach to personality” He believed that personality should be classified ideographically which is reflected in his trait theory and research. “Allport published 172 letters from a woman that provided the basis for clinical characterization of her personality.” (Pervin & John, 1997 p231) However it would not be practical to constantly research personality in this way due to economic constraints. It would also be a very time consuming and drawn out process.
Allport used this idiographic case study method to achieve a detailed picture of an individual’s personality but this also leads him to the idea that there is an existence of universal traits (a more nomothetic approach) This can be seen as a disadvantage of the ideograph approach as “the generation of empirical evidence from individual cases means the we cannot legitimately generalise idiographic findings to all people” (Abbott, 2001 p12) This is because it relies on the subjective behaviours of small numbers of individuals and therefore runs the risk of not being reliable if applied to “understanding of people as a whole” (Abbott, 2001 p12)
This type of idiographic approach would however be advantageous over the nomothetic approach when writing a biography. Allport seems take this biographical approach such as when publishing the 172 letters from one individual. However there is an argument that “Allport is misguided in that he confused the study of individual differences with the art of biography, which is a descriptive science” (Birch & Hayward, 1994 p70) Biographies provide a detailed account of individuals but they cannot “provide an adequate way of understanding human nature in general” (Birch & Hayward, 1994 p70) This is due to their subjective approach as “different biographers (may) come to different conclusions. (Davidson, 2002) Therefore in constantly trying to seek out the uniqueness of an individual, Allport and Kelly have neglected the fact that similarities are what make people human. If nobody had similar personalities then people would find it very hard to form relationships. Kelly also went into great detail when studying individuals. This can be seen through his development of the “repertory grid…which a therapist could use to find out how a client’s personal construct system worked. (Hayes & Orrell, 1998 p268) This took time to develop as and could be very detailed.
There are also scientific considerations to be taken into account when trying to classify Allport and Kelly’s theories. It may be beneficial for these theories to be classed as idiographic for ethical reasons. The nomothetic approach is scientific and its “methodologies are in line with other sciences such as chemistry or physics” Abbott, 2001 p11) Sciences like these are concerned with the generation of universal laws to explain events. However when taking a psychological view it may “lead to unethical consequences if it were used to control and shape people’s lives” (Abbott, 2001 p11) Using generalised constructs in personality tests may oppress people in society.
However classifying Allport and Kelly’s theories as idiographic may also have disadvantages from a scientific point of view. “Phenomenological approaches are antagonistic to the concerns of trait psychology…it is difficult to see how they can add to the understanding of traits” (Matthews & Deary, 1998 p101) as a whole. It is a hard task for psychology being a new science to oppose these scientists. However this is what the theories of Allport and Kelly do. It may seem beneficial for these theories to be adapted and classified as nomothetic. This would mean these theories would be given more prestige in science but they would become false theories. Kelly “believed that in dealing with the world, people act like scientists; each person formulates hypotheses, tests them out (and) revises them” (Birch & Hayward, 1994 p74). This way of thinking may lean toward a more nomothetic approach as it generalises that everyone has the same basic thought structure. However “at any given time, the particular hypotheses an individual holds about the world are called personal constructs.” (Birch & Hayward, 1994 p74)
It can be said that these theorists are “generally regarded as having made a major contribution to the study of personality” (Birch & Hayward. 1994 p70) As they have made such a major contribution they have obviously not been rejected too widely. However there are always going to be two sides of the argument. If theories were always classified to one side, psychology would be a very boring subject. Therefore is it really acceptable that the theories of Allport and Kelly be classified as wholly idiographic or nomothetic? This essay – as stated in the first paragraph - has been concerned with discovering where the pendulum of classification should rest. The answer would appear to be evident; classification of these theories should rest in-between both idiographic and nomothetic approaches. The right place for a pendulum to rest is in the middle and it would seem that this is also right for Allport and Kelly’s theories.
To conclude, it has shown that both theories incorporate aspects relevant to each of the idiographic and nomothetic approaches. Both “emphasise the uniqueness of the individual” (Birch & Hayward, 1994 p43) but both believe that traits and constructs can be generalised across society. So how can these theories be classified into one approach? There is a relevant quote by Abbott (2001 p12) “that every person is like no other, like some other and like all other people” In other words people are always going to have similarities and differences in societies. Therefore generalisations will have to be made at certain times just as distinctions will also have to be made. These generalisations would take the nomothetic approach and the distinctions the idiographic approach. This shows that because Allport and Kelly’s theories are based on the study of people both these approaches will need to be applied, indicating that there should be room for a compromise between the two.
Of course Allport and Kelly’s theories can lean more to one side – in their case it would seem they should lean more to the idiographic approach. This is due to factors that have been discussed in this essay. One of these factors is the amount of individual detail that both theorists used such as Allport’s case studies and Kelly’s repertory grid. Detailed information on individuals takes the form of an idiographic approach. However it has been seen that there are nomothetic elements to these theories such as the using generalised traits and constructs. Although it has been argued these generalisations can be idiographic due to the fact that even generalised traits and constructs are individual, there is still elements of the nomothetic approach apparent. Therefore it would seem appropriate for Allport and Kelly’s theories to be classified somewhere along the continuum between the idiographic and nomothetic theories, but will lean more to the idiographic approach.
References
Abbott, T. (2001). Social and personality development. East Sussex: Routledge.
Birch, A. & Hayward, S. (1994). Individual differences. Hampshire: The Macmillan Press Ltd.
Davidson, C. (2002). Continuity and change: development of modern personality theory since he early theorists. Retrieved from the Web 24/10/03. httlp://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/1150/psych3.html
Ewen, R.B. (1998). An introduction to theories of personality. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hayes, N., & Orrell, S. (1998). Psychology an introduction; third edition. Essex: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
Matthews, G., & Deary, I.J. (1998). Personality traits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pervin, L.A. & John, O.P. (1997). Personality theory and research; seventh edition. Canada: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Sarason, I.G. (1972). Personality an objective approach; second edition. Canada: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
