About
Issues
Our authors 
Library
Contact us
Forum
Дизайн и исполнение — Еварт
 
Dorfman L. Ya. (2018). A human individuality: traits, compounds, and structures

<< To the contents of the issue

JournalMethodology and History of Psychology Year2018 Issue3 Pages72–95
SectionHuman Psychology TypeScientific article DOI10.7868/S1819265318030056
CitationDorfman L. Ya. (2018). Individual'nost' čeloveka: svojstva, sostavy, struktury [A human individuality: traits, compounds, and structures] // Metodologiâ i istoriâ psihologii. Iss. 3. P. 72–95.




A Human Individuality: Traits, Compounds, and Structures


A methodological and theoretical account was applied to the traits, compounds, and structures as basic concepts accommodated in the area of individual differences. In addition, the issue of resilience-variability of above concepts has been treated. These issues trace back to history but burden researchers nowadays. Instead of paradoxical collision between holism (structuralism) and atomism, the author proposes to reconcile them. For this purpose, each of basic concepts was revised in a separate way. Then their relations were taken into account. It is shown that traits and their compounds reveal their duality due to the fact that they are self-identical and relative, discrete and multiple, enduring and changeable. Beyond that, they are dynamic as they are plural, mutually transient, and flexible. The structures are considered with many varieties. They fall between and within systems, as well as specify local ones. Either, hierarchical and multidimensional structures are highlighted, parallel and intersecting ones were marked, as well. Finally, factorial and causal structures are considered. Further, the structures are shown to carry a twofold meaning, which are uncovered through their relation to compounds and commonalities. The compounds and structures demonstrate three kinds of their relations. The first deals with one compound referred to one structure (a static mode). The second reveals changeable compounds combined with several structures (polymorphism). The third shows relations between the same compound and several structures (isomerism). The commonalities relate to both compounds and structures but in different ways. The commonalities relate to structures indirectly, through compounds. Ultimately, these views land support to understanding and reflection on the question of how holism (structuralism) and atomism can be integrated.

Keywords: individuality; trait; compound; structure; self-identity; discreteness; stability; dynamism; polymorphism; isomerism


References
  • Abušenko V. L. (2003). Strukturno-funkcional'nyj analiz // Sociologiâ: ènciklopediâ / sost. A. A. Gricanov i dr. Minsk: Knižnyj dom. S. 1098–1101.
  • Ajzenk G. Û. (1999). Struktura ličnosti. M.KSP+; SPb.: Ûventa.
  • Allport G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  • Amthauer R. (1973). Intelligenz-Struktur-Test I. S. T. 70. Handanweisung fur die Durchfahrung und Auswertung. Gottingen: Verlag fur Psychologie.
  • Anan'ev B. G. (2001). Čelovek kak predmet poznaniâ. SPb.: Piter.
  • Bandura A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Barabanŝikov V. A. (2007). Sistemnyj podhod v strukture psihologičeskogo poznaniâ // Metodologiâ i istoriâ psihologii. Vyp. 1. S. 86–99.
  • Belâev G. V. i dr. (2010–2017). Atomizm. Gumanitarnaâ ènciklopediâ // Centr gumanitarnyh tehnologij (poslednââ redakciâ: 02.10.2017). URL: http://gtmarket.ru/concepts/7330.
  • Berkovic L. (2005). Agressiâ: pričiny, posledstviâ, kontrol'. M.: Ajris-press.
  • Bing M. N. et al. (2007). An integrative typology of personality assessment for aggression: Implications for predicting counterproductive workplace behavior // Journal of Applied Psychology. 92 (3). P. 722–744.
  • Cantor N. & Kihlstrom J. F. (1987). Personality and social intelligence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Cervone D. (1991). The two disciplines of personality psychology // Review of Handbook of personality: Theory and research. Psychological Science. 2. P. 371–377.
  • Cronbach L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist. 30. P. 116–127.
  • Deci E. L. & Ryan R. M. (2012). Self-determination theory. In P. A. M. V. Lange, A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology. Vol. 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. P. 416–437.
  • Dorfman L. (2002). Divergenciâ i konstrukt  // Ličnost', kreativnost', iskusstvo / otv. red. E. A. Malânov i dr. Perm': Izd-vo PGIIK; Izd-vo PSI. S. 141–184.
  • Dorfman L. (2016). Affective meaning of pronouns in a Russian sample // Journal of Literature and Art Studies. Vol. 6. № 9. P. 1042–1055.
  • Dorfman L. Â. (1997). Èmocii v iskusstve: teoretičeskie podhody i èmpiričeskie issledovaniâ. M.: Smysl.
  • Dorfman L. Â. (2000). Problema celogo i časti v zarubežnyh sistemnyh issledovaniâh // Vestnik Permskogo gos. ped. un-ta. Ser. 1. Psihologiâ. № 1–2. S. 114–122.
  • Dorfman L. Â. (2004). Â-koncepciâ: differenciaciâ i integraciâ // Integral'naâ individual'nost', Â-koncepciâ, ličnost' / pod red. L. Â. Dorfmana. M.: Smysl. S. 96–123.
  • Dorfman L. Â. (2008). Metodologičeskij analiz teorii integral'noj individual'nosti V. S. Merlina. Metodologiâ i istoriâ psihologii. Vyp. 3. S. 106–121.
  • Dorfman L. Â. (2012). Èmpiričeskaâ paradigma v psihologičeskoj nauke // Paradigmy v psihologii: naukovedčeskij analiz / otv. red. A. L. Žuravlev, T. V. Kornilova, A. V. Ûrevič. M.: Institut psihologii RAN. S. 335–379.
  • Dorfman L. Â. (2014). Kauzal'nyj plûralizm i psihologiâ (okončanie) // Mir psihologii. № 4 (80). S. 230–246.
  • Dorfman L. Â. (2016). Kauzal'nyj plûralizm i holizm v koncepcii metaindividual'nogo mira // Psihologiâ. Žurnal Vysšej školy èkonomiki. № 1. S. 98–136.
  • Dorfman L. Â. (2017). Èmpiričeskaâ psihologiâ. Istoričeskie i filosofskie osnovy. M.: Ûrajt.
  • Dorfman L. Â. i dr. (2017). Dual'naâ model' discipliny // Filologiâ i kul'tura. Philology and Culture. № 4 (v pečati).
  • Dorfman L. Â., Butakova A. A. (2015). Vklady very v intuiciû i logičeskogo myšleniâ v kreativnoe myšlenie // Tvorčestvo: nauka, iskusstvo, žizn'. M.: Institut psihologii RAN. S. 149–152.
  • Dorfman L. Â., Lâdov V. N. (2015). Metaindividual'naâ model' disciplinirovannosti (na materiale issledovaniâ kursantov voennogo vuza MVD) // Vestnik ÛUrGU. Ser. Psihologiâ. № 1. S. 17–28.
  • Dorfman L. Â., Zubakin M. V. (2008). Novye dannye ob èmpiričeskih referentah oblastej metaindividual'nogo mira // XXIII Merlinskie čteniâ: "Aktivnost' – individual'nost' – subʺekt" / nauč. red. B. A. Vâtkin. Perm': Permskij gosudarstvennyj pedagogičeskij universitet. S. 35–37.
  • Echterhoff G. E., Higgins T. & Levine J. M. (2009). Shared reality: Experiencing commonality with others' inner states about the world // Perspectives on Psychological Science. 4 (5). P. 496–521.
  • Eysenck H. (1995). Genius: The natural history of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Eysenck H. J. & Eysenck S. B. G. (1994). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ-R Adult) comprising the EPQ-Revised (EPQ-R) & EPQ-R Short Scale. San Diego, CA: EdITS.
  • Funder D. C. (1991). Global traits: A neo-Allportian approach to personality // Psychological Science. 2. P. 31–39.
  • Gavrilova E. V., Ušakov D. V. (2012). Ispol'zovanie periferijnoj informacii v rešenii zadač kak funkciâ intellekta // Èksperimental'naâ psihologiâ. № 3. S. 21–31.
  • Goldberg L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits // American Psychologist. 48. P. 26–34.
  • Golubeva È. A. (2005). Sposobnosti. Ličnost'. Individual'nost'. Dubna: Feniks+.
  • Golubeva È. A. (2010). Obŝaâ i differencial'naâ psihofiziologiâ: vzaimovliâniâ naučnyh škol B. M. Teplova i E. N. Sokolova // Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Ser. 14. Psihologiâ. № 4. S. 32–56.
  • Guc A. K., Pautova L. A. (2013). Global'naâ ètnosociologiâ. M.: Knižnyj dom "LIBROKOM".
  • H'ell L., Zigler D. (2006). Teorii ličnosti (Osnovnye položeniâ, issledovaniâ i primenenie). SPb.: Piter.
  • James W. (1904/1976). Does consciousness exist? Essays in radical empiricism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. P. 3–19.
  • 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 (3). P. 171–203.
  • Kant I. (2006). Kritika čistogo razuma. M.: Èksmo.
  • Kločko V. E. (2007). Zakonomernosti dviženiâ psihologičeskogo poznaniâ i problema metoda nauki // Metodologiâ i istoriâ psihologii. Vyp. 1. S. 5–19.
  • Kuz'min V. P. (1982a). Istoričeskie predposylki i gnoseologičeskie osnovaniâ sistemnogo podhoda // Psihologičeskij žurnal. № 3. S. 3–14.
  • Kuz'min V. P. (1982b). Istoričeskie predposylki i gnoseologičeskie osnovaniâ sistemnogo podhoda (okončanie) // Psihologičeskij žurnal. № 4. S. 3–13.
  • Leont'ev D. A. (2011b). Novye orientiry ponimaniâ ličnosti v psihologii: ot neobhodimogo k vozmožnomu // Voprosy psihologii. № 1. S. 3–27.
  • Leont'ev D. A. (red.) (2011a). Ličnostnyj potencial. Struktura i diagnostika. M.: Smysl.
  • Leont'ev D. A., Mitina O. V. (2016). Idei sistemnosti i samoorganizacii v psihologii ličnosti: istoriâ i perspektivy // XXXI Merlinskie čteniâ: Teoriâ, metodologiâ i praktika integral'nogo issledovaniâ individual'nosti v sovremennom čelovekoznanii / nauč. red. B. A. Vâtkin. Perm': PGGPU. S. 48–51.
  • Libin A. V., Libina A. V. (2008). Logika izučeniâ prirodnyh osnov psihičeskoj real'nosti: teoriâ mental'noj ierarhii L. M. Vekkera // Metodologiâ i istoriâ psihologii. Vyp. 4. S. 101–108.
  • Lomov B. F. (1984). Metodologičeskie i teoretičeskie problemy psihologii. M.: Nauka.
  • Magnusson D. (2012). The human being in society: Psychology as a scientific discipline // European Psychologist. 17 (1). P. 21–27.
  • Martindale C. (1995). Creativity and connectionism. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. P. 249–268.
  • Mead G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Mednick S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process // Psychological Review. Vol. 69. P. 220–232.
  • Merlin V. S. (1986). Očerk integral'nogo issledovaniâ individual'nosti. M.: Pedagogika.
  • Merlin V. S. (red.) (1973). Očerk teorii temperamenta. 2 izd. Perm'.
  • Mischel W & Shoda Y. (1994). Personality psychology has two goals: Must it be two fields? // Psychological Inquiry. 5. P. 156–158.
  • Mischel W. & Shoda Y. (1999). Reconciling processing dynamics and personality dispositions // Annual Review of Psychology. 49. P. 229–258.
  • Moiseev V. I. (2015). Filosofiâ nauki. Filosofskie problemy biologii i mediciny. M.: GÈOTAR-Media.
  • Nebylicyn V. D. (1990). Izbrannye psihologičeskie trudy: psihologiâ i fiziologiâ. M.: Pedagogika.
  • Nikiforov A. L. (2010). Holizm // Novaâ filosofskaâ ènciklopediâ. V 4 t. T. 4. M.: Mysl'. S. 298–299.
  • Osin E. N. i dr. (2015). Operacionalizaciâ pâtifaktornoj modeli ličnostnyh čert na rossijskoj vyborke // Psihologičeskaâ diagnostika. № 3. S. 80–104.
  • Pervin L. A. (Ed.) (1990). Handbook of personality: Theory and research. New York: Guilford Press.
  • Petrenko V. F. (2010). Paradigma konstruktivizma v gumanitarnyh naukah // Metodologiâ i istoriâ psihologii. Vyp. 3. S. 5–12.
  • Petrovskij A. V., Âroševskij M. G. (1996). Istoriâ i teoriâ psihologii. V 2 t. Rostov-na-Donu: Feniks.
  • Petrovskij V. A. (1997). Očerk teorii svobodnoj pričinnosti // Psihologiâ s čelovečeskim licom: gumanističeskaâ perspektiva v postsovetskoj psihologii / pod. red. D. A. Leont'eva, V. G. Ŝur. M.: Smysl. S. 124–144.
  • Pierce J. L., Kostova T. & Dirks K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research // Review of General Psychology. 7 (1). P. 84–107.
  • Ratner C. (1997). Cultural psychology and qualitative methodology. Theoretical and empirical considerations. New York; London: Plenum Press.
  • Rean A. A. (1996). Agressiâ i agressivnost' ličnosti // Psihologičeskij žurnal. № 5. S. 3–18.
  • Rusalov V. M. (2012). Temperament v strukture individual'nosti čeloveka: differencial'no-psihofiziologičeskie i psihologičeskie issledovaniâ. M.: Institut psihologii RAN.
  • Sagatovskij V. N. (2011). Filosofskie kategorii. Č. I. Ontologiâ. Avtorskij slovar'. SPb.: SPb-NIU ITMO.
  • Salmon W. (1998). Causality and explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Ŝebetenko S. A. (2017). Čerty ličnosti v refleksii i žiznennyh proâvleniâh čeloveka. Avtoref. diss. doktora psihol. nauk. M.
  • Senin I. G., Sorokina O. V., Čirkov V. I. (1993). Test umstvennyh sposobnostej. Âroslavl': NPC "Psihodiagnostika". S. 3–25.
  • Slanina Z. (1984). Teoretičeskie aspekty âvleniâ izomerii v himii. M.: Mir.
  • Spearman C. (1904). General Intelligence, objectively determined and measured // American Journal of Psychology. 15. P. 201–293.
  • Stamps J. S. (1980). Holonomy: A human systems theory. Seaside, CA: Intersystems.
  • Teplov B. M. (1998). Psihologiâ i psihofiziologiâ individual'nyh različij. M.: Institut praktičeskoj psihologii; Voronež: NPO "Modèk".
  • Thurstone L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Tolkovyj slovar' russkogo âzyka: V 4 t. T. 4 (2007) / Pod red. D. N. Ušakova. M.: TERRA – Knižnyj klub.
  • Ulanovskij A. M. (2007). Fenomenologičeskij metod v psihologii, psihiatrii i psihoterapii // Metodologiâ i istoriâ psihologii. Vyp. 1. S. 130–150.
  • Urmancev Û. A. (1988). Obŝaâ teoriâ sistem // Sistema. Simmetriâ. Garmoniâ / red. V. S. Tûhtin, Û. A. Urmancev. M.: Mysl'. S. 38–124.
  • Ušakov D. V. (2006). Âzyki psihologii tvorčestva: Âkov Aleksandrovič Ponomarev i ego naučnaâ škola // Psihologiâ tvorčestva: škola Â. A. Ponomareva / pod red. D. V. Ušakova. M.: Institut psihologii RAN. S. 19–142.
  • Valueva E. A. (2007). Intellekt, kreativnost' i processy aktivacii semantičeskoj seti. Avtoref. diss. kand. psihol. nauk. M.
  • Vâtkin B. A. (2008). Lekcii po psihologii integral'noj individual'nosti čeloveka. 2 izd. M.: MPSU.
  • Vâtkin B. A. (red.) (2015). Individual'nost' rastuŝego čeloveka v usloviâh sovremennoj školy. Perm': Perm. nac. issled. politeh. un-t.
  • Vâtkin B. A., Dorfman L. Â. (2017). Teoriâ individual'nosti V. S. Merlina: istoriâ i sovremennost' // Obrazovanie i nauka. № 2. S. 145–160.
  • Vâtkin B. A., Dorfman L. Â., Kalugin A. Û. (2018). Obŝee i različiâ v cennostnyh orientaciâh i psihodinamike studentov: integrativnaâ model'. Soobŝeniâ 1 i 2 // Vestnik Udmurtskogo universiteta. Ser. Filosofiâ. Psihologiâ. Pedagogika (v pečati).
  • Vekker L. M. (1974–1981). Psihičeskie processy. V 3 t. L.: Izdatel'stvo Leningradskogo universiteta.
  • Verma A., Ram Krišna P. (1969). Polimorfizm i politipizm v kristallah. M.: Mir.
  • Vernadskij N. I. (1892). O polimorfizme kak obŝem svojstve materii: lekcii // Učenye zapiski Moskovskogo universiteta, otdelenie estestvenno-istoričeskih nauk. № 9. S. 1–18.
  • Wiggins J. S. (1995). IAS: Interpersonal Adjective Scales. Professional Manual. PAR Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
  • Zimbardo Ph. et al. (1995). Psychology. A European text. London: Harper & Collins.

| Версия для печати |
© 2019 Methodology and History of Psychology