The nomothetic and ideographic approaches have for many years been the antithesis of each other. However, Holte (1967) has argued that the debate is based on a false dichotomy; the two approaches are not at opposite ends of the spectrum but are co-existing. Many psychologists’ believe the nomothetic and ideographic approaches are complimentary and interdependent and great emphasis has been placed on investigating the relationship between individual cases and general principles. Thorngate (1986) wrote that ‘to find out what people do in general we must first discover what each person does in particular and then determine what these particulars have in common’. In other words, by concentrating on the average and general we miss out on the individual. In order to understand the nomothetic we must first discover the ideographic. The general can only follow after the specific. Psychologists supporting this view e.g. Hilliard believe that this can be achieved through replication of case studies. The case study method is advantageous as it can reveal instances of rare, uncommon behaviors or conditions.
The nomothetic and ideographic approaches will now be applied to the field of personality. Personality is a rather complex area of psychological study. This is because personality is a hypothetical construct; it is a concept that is not directly observable. There is no one acceptable single definition of personality, although there are a number of persistent features in all definitions. However, personality can be defined as features, traits, behaviors and experiences that make each person a unique individual.
The nomothetic approach to personality, emphasizes personality is genetic and innate, and stresses environmental factors have very little impact on personality. According to this viewpoint, people’s unique personalities can be understood as them having greater or lesser amounts of traits that are consistently across people. This approach emphasizes comparability among individuals but sees people as unique in their combination of traits. This viewpoint sees traits as having the same psychological meaning in everyone. The belief is that people only differ in the amount of each trait as only this, amounts to their uniqueness.
An example of a trait theory associated with the nomothetic approach is that by Eysenck (1947). Eysenck used the technique of factor analysis to analyze personality data drawn from his study of 700 male ex-servicemen in hospital suffering from neurotic disorders. Through his analysis he discovered two dimensions of the personality. These were: Extraversion-introversion and Neuroticism-stability. According to Eysenck there were four basic personality types: a neurotic extrovert, a neurotic introvert, a stable extrovert and a stable introvert. Eysenck acknowledged that the majority fall between these extremes with only a few at the actual extremes of personality. Later on in his research, Eysenck theory evolved to a three factor model with extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism as the factors. Psychoticism, like the other two factors, was also used to describe a group of people at the extremes of personality, with the majority of people achieving low scores on this. Eysenck argued that individual differences in personality were largely the result of heredity, and theorised that these genetic differences resulted in differing physiological functioning.To measure extraversion and neuroticism Eysenck created a test called Eysenck’s Personality Inventory (EPI), and eventually to measure all three dimensions he created Eysenck’s Personality Questionnaire (EPQ); both of which were questionnaires with yes/no type answers i.e. ‘forced choice questions’. Based on Eysenck chosen sample whether this theory can be applied to the rest of the population is rather questionable. Also, his use of questionnaires can be criticized as they themselves are fraught with problems. Eysenck’s theory is clearly a nomothetic theory with no emphasis placed on the individual.
Another trait theory associated with the nomothetic approach is that of Cattell’s (1965). Using a Standard English dictionary, Cattell identified over 18,000 words relevant to the human personality and through observations of real life situations, questionnaires and objective tests etc Cattell reduced this list of words and discovered two distinct types of personaity traits. These were: surface traits and source traits. Surface traits were obvious traits, easily identifiable by other people. Source traits were less visable, and of more importance. Cattell identified 16 personality factors or source traits that everyone possessed to a greater or lesser amount. He then developed a personality test based on this called the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). Each trait was given a label and a person was given a score either high or low for each trait. Cattell argued that his 16PF would provide a picture of someone in terms of common traits. However, he pointed out that this should not be taken as a complete picture of a person’s personality. Everyone has unique traits and any personality profile should be accompanied by a description of these unique traits. His 16PF is widely used often accompanied by an interview. Cattell had the advantage over Eysenck in that he acknowledged the personality is unique and an individual could possess traits that were not accounted for in his 16PF test. However, like Eysenck’s theory Cattell can be criticized in terms of his use of questionnaires.
The ideographic approach to personality emphasizes that personality is learned and affected by a wide range of social, cultural and environmental factors which determine personality. According to this viewpoint, people have unique personality structures thus some traits are more important in understanding the structure of some people than others. This approach emphasizes that each person has a unique psychological structure, and some traits are possessed by only one person, there are times when it is impossible to compare one person with another. This viewpoint emphasizes that traits may differ in significance from person to person.
An example of a personality theory associated with the ideographic approach is that by Carl Rodgers. Rodgers theory originated from his counseling and therapeutic work. He advised that the concept of ‘the self’ was the key to understanding human behavior. We all have a self concept: our knowledge and feelings about ourselves together with an ideal self: the self we would like to be. Rodgers claimed that we are the experts in understanding our own behavior and personality. He stressed that its not only what happens to us that is important, but also how it is interpreted. He used the Q-sort method to assess people’s ideal self and self concept and argued that good psychological health exists where our self concept and ideal self are reasonably compatible. It is when there is a serious mismatch or incongruence between the two that psychological problems arise. According to Rodgers, for healthy personality development we need to strive towards self-actualization and unconditional positive regard needs to be given.
Another theory associated with the ideographic approach is Gordon Allport’s trait theory (1961). Using a Standard English dictionary, Gordon identified over 18,000 words relevant to the human personality and reduced this list to 4,500 traits to describe personality. He divided these into common traits, found in all members of a certain cultural ethnic background and individual traits, which are unique and derived from life experiences. Individual traits, cannot be measured, are not dimensions that can be applied to all the population and are only discoverable through the careful and detailed analysis of individuals. Allport suggested that traits can be categorised as: Cardinal traits, Central traits and Secondary dispositions. He stated that traits are idiosyncratic in three ways: a trait that is central for one person may be secondary to another, what makes a trait central or secondary is how strongly it influences the individuals behaviour, and no two people will be the same with a particular trait. According to Allport, it is this that makes it impossible to compare individuals. Allport is generally regarded as making a significant contribution to the study of personality. Although Allport puts himself across as a ideographic theorist his approach was not purely ideographic. Whilst emphasising the individuality and uniqueness of each personality, he also recognised the existence of some common traits that all people share in varying amounts.
In conclusion, it has been revealed in this essay that the individual personality is very complex. It is therefore important to study the individual to understand personality and the ideographic approach is therefore vital. However, the individual cannot be studied without some acknowledgement of the nomothetic approach as nowadays the two approaches are co-existing. As argued by Holte, the two approaches are not separate. All description about a personal character involves some degree of generalisation. Krache (1992) stated that to explain human behaviour psychologists must seek a general theoretical framework that specifies the types of constructs that should be focused on and the types of relationships expected from these concepts. The ideographic approach therefore cannot be opposed to developing universal laws.
