A structural approach to understanding personality, which is rooted in a being or substance ontology, is most useful for making between individual and group comparisons. In contrast, a process-centric approach, which is anchored in a Becoming or event-based ontology, is most helpful for understanding individual personality process and variation. A process-centric model, using classical Confucianism as a starting point, has a number of advantages in that it (1) integrates persons and situations, (2) is inherently relational, which implies an aesthetic dimension to personality development and functioning, (3) focuses on the uniqueness of individual personalities, (4) views qualitative and quantitative inquiry as complementary and of equal scientific value, and (5) encourages intra- and inter-disciplinary collaborations.
AmesR. T. (2011). Confucian role ethics: A vocabulary, Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.
2.
AmesR. T. (2015). The Great Commentary (Dazhuan) and Chinese natural cosmology. International Communication of Chinese Culture, 2, 1–18.
3.
AmesR. T.HallD. L. (2001). Focusing the familiar: A translation and philosophical interpretation of the Zhongyong, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
4.
AmesR. T.RosemontH.Jr. (1998). The analects of Confucius: A philosophical translation, New York: Ballantine Books.
5.
BlockJ. (2010). The five-factor framing of personality and beyond: Some ruminations. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 2–25.
6.
BrinkmannS. (2011). Toward an expansive hybrid psychology: Integrating theories of the mediated mind. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 45, 1–20.
7.
CleggJ. W. (2010). Uncertainty as a fundamental scientific value. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 44, 245–251.
8.
DeweyJ. (1922). Human nature and conduct, New York: Henry Holt and Company.
9.
FingaretteH. (1972). Confucius: The secular as sacred, Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
10.
FleesonW. (2004). Moving personality beyond the person-situation debate: The challenge and the opportunity of within-person variability. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 83–87.
11.
FreemanM. (2011). Toward a poetic science. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 45, 389–396.
12.
FunderD. C. (1991). Global traits: A neo-Allportian approach to personality. Psychological Science, 2, 31–39.
13.
GergenK. J.JosselsonR.FreemanM. (2015). The promises of qualitative inquiry. American Psychologist, 70(1), 1–9.
14.
GiordanoP. J. (2010). Culture and theories of personality: Western, Confucian, and Buddhist perspectives. In: KeithK. (Ed.), Cross-cultural psychology: A contemporary reader, Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 423–444.
15.
GiordanoP. J. (2012). Confucius and Buddha in the college classroom: Relational virtuosity in teaching and learning. In: GrocciaJ. E.AlsudairiM. A. T.BuskistW. (Eds) Handbook of college and university teaching: A global perspective, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 475–489.
16.
GiordanoP. J. (2014). Personality as continuous stochastic process: What western personality theory can learn from classical Confucianism. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 48, 111–128.
17.
GiordanoP. J. (2015). Being or becoming: Toward an open-system, process-centric model of personality. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49, 757–771.
18.
GoughB.LyonsA. (2016). The future of qualitative research in psychology: Accentuating the positive. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50, 234–243.
19.
GouldS. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man, New York: Norton.
20.
HamakerE. L. (2011). Why researchers should think “within-person”: A paradigmatic rationale. In: MehlM. R.ConnerT. S. (Eds) Handbook of research methods for studying daily life, New York: Guilford, pp. 43–61.
21.
HenrichJ.HeineS. J.NorenzayanA. (2010). The weirdest people in the world. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–135.
22.
HermansH. J. M.KempenH. J. G. (1998). Moving cultures: The perilous problems of cultural dichotomies in a globalizing society. American Psychologist, 53, 1111–1120.
23.
HershockP. (1996). Valuing diversity: Buddhist reflection on realizing a more equitable global future, Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
24.
IvanhoeP. J. (2000). Confucian moral self-cultivation, 2nd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
25.
KitayamaS.UskulA. K. (2011). Culture, mind, and the brain: Current evidence and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 419–449.
26.
LamiellJ. T. (1998). ‘Nomothetic’ and ‘idiographic’: Contrasting Windelband's understanding with contemporary usage. Theory & Psychology, 8, 23–38.
27.
LamiellJ. T. (2003). Beyond individual and group differences, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
MarkusH. R.KitayamaS. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
29.
MarkusH. R.KitayamaS. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 420–430.
30.
McCraeR. R. (2011). Personality theories for the 21st century. Teaching of Psychology, 38, 209–214.
31.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T.Jr. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical contexts for the five-factor model. In: WigginsJ. S. (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives, New York: Guilford, pp. 51–87.
32.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T.Jr (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509–516.
33.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T.Jr. (2008). The five-factor theory of personality. In: JohnO. P.RobinsR. W.PervinL. A. (Eds) Handbook of personality: Theory and research, New York: Guilford, pp. 159–181.
34.
MeadG. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
35.
MolenaarP. C. M. (2004). A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: Bringing the person back into scientific psychology, this time forever. Measurement, 2(4), 201–218.
36.
MolenaarP. C. M. (2015). On the relation between person-oriented and subject-specific approaches. Journal for Person-Oriented Research, 1, 34–41.
37.
MolenaarP. C. M.CampbellC. G. (2009). The new person-specific paradigm in psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 112–117.
38.
MolenaarP. C. M.HuizengaH. M.NesselroadeJ. R. (2002). The relationship between the structure of inter-individual and intra-individual variability: A theoretical and empirical vindication of developmental systems theory. In: StaudingerU.LindenbergerU. (Eds) Understanding human development, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 339–360.
39.
MolenaarP. C. M.ValsinerJ. (2008). How generalization works through the single case: A simple idiographic process analysis of an individual psychotherapy. In: SalvatoreS.ValsinerJ.Strout-YagodzynskiS.CleggJ. (Eds) Yearbook of idiographic science, Vol. I, Rome, Italy: Firera Publishing, pp. 23–38.
40.
NesselroadeJ. R.MolenaarP. C. M. (2010). Emphasizing intraindividual variability in the study of development over the life span: Concepts and issues. In: LernerR. M.OvertonW. F.FreundA. M.LambM. E. (Eds) The handbook of life-span development, two-volume set, New York: Wiley, pp. 30–54.
41.
NesselroadeJ. R.RamN. (2004). Studying intraindividual variability: What we have learned that will help us understand lives in context. Research in Human Development, 1, 9–29.
42.
NisbettR. E.PengK.ChoiI.NorenzayanA. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291–310.
43.
RamN.GerstorfD. (2009). Time-structured and net intraindividual variability: Tools for examining the development of dynamic characteristics and processes. Psychology and Aging, 24, 778–791.
44.
RosemontH.Jr.AmesR. T. (2009). The Chinese classic of family reverence: A philosophical translation of the Xiaojing, Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
45.
SatoT.WatanabeY.OmiY. (2007). Beyond dichotomy: Towards creative synthesis. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 41, 50–59.
46.
ShenV. (2014). Introduction: Classical Confucianism in historical and comparative context. In: ShenV. (Ed.), Dao Companion to Classical Confucian Philosophy, New York, NY: Springer, pp. 1–19.
47.
SmedslundJ. (2016). Why psychology cannot be an empirical science. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50, 185–195.
48.
SterbaS. K.BauerD. J. (2010). Matching method with theory in person-oriented developmental psychopathology research. Development and Psychopathology, 22, 239–254.
49.
TateoL.ValsinerJ. (2015). Time breath of psychological theories: A meta-theoretical focus. Review of General Psychology, 19, 357–364.
50.
TuW. (1989). Centrality and commonality: An essay on Confucian religiousness, Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
51.
TuW. (1994). Embodying the universe: A note on Confucian self-realization. In: AmesR. T.DissanayakeW.KasulisT. P. (Eds) Self as person in Asian theory and practice, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, pp. 177–186.
52.
UherJ. (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.
53.
UherJ. (2015b) Developing “personality” taxonomies: Metatheoretical and methodological rationales underlying selection approaches, methods of data generation and reduction principles. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49, 4.
54.
UherJ. (2015c). Interpreting “personality” taxonomies: Why previous models cannot capture individual-specific experiencing, behavior, functioning and development. Major taxonomic tasks still lay ahead. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49, 4.
55.
ValsinerJ. (1986). The individual subject in scientific psychology, New York, NY: Springer.
