SAGE Journal Articles

Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Article 1: Salvatore, S., & Valsiner, J. (2010). Between the general and the unique: Overcoming the nomothetic versus idiographic opposition. Theory & Psychology, 20(6), 817–833. doi:10.1177/0959354310381156


Learning Objective: 1 & 2

Summary: Abstract: In accordance with Windelband’s original proposal, the notions of nomothetic and idiographic are complementary terms, rather than an oppositional dyad. Given their dynamic and field-dependent nature, psychological phenomena are inherently unique—the relationship between their way of being and their constant becoming is mediated by the contingent conditions of the field. Therefore, science cannot be anything but idiographic—always facing a new unique event—while it is aimed at producing general knowledge of the nomothetic kind out of the ever-changing processes that unfold through irreversible time. The uniqueness of psychological phenomena makes it unfeasible for science to rely exclusively on inductive generalization that works through accumulation of empirical evidence provided by aggregated collections of specimens either within a single case (accumulation over time) or by assuming equivalence of exemplars across single cases subsumed under the same general class (a category viewed as a population). Abductive generalization can be a solution to the class←→ individuals relationship problem as it allows characterizing the dynamics of the unique case while it arrives at generalization.

Questions to Consider:

1. Compare and contrast the Idiographic and Nomothetic Perspectives. Cognitive Domain: Analysis

2. ______ terrain was filled with fierce fights between materialist and idealist philosophical credos. Cognitive Domain: Knowledge

  1. Greek philosophical
  2. German intellectual
  3. Western theological
  4. Eastern philosophical

3.The question of how it is possible to derive general knowledge from single specimens creates a major ______ problem for psychology. Cognitive Domain: Knowledge

  1. ontological
  2. teleological
  3. epistemological
  4. cosmological

Article 2: Hill, P. L., & Roberts, B. W. (2012). Narcissism, well-being, and observer-rated personality across the lifespan. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. doi:10.1177/1948550611415867


Learning Objective: 2 & 3

Summary: Abstract: Previous studies have noted that narcissists do, in some cases, experience benefits. The current study adds to this discussion by examining whether age might moderate the links between narcissism and a self-reported benefit (life satisfaction) and an observer-reported benefit (observer ratings of personality). In a sample of college students and their family members (N = 807), the authors demonstrate that narcissism positively correlates with life satisfaction for adolescents and emerging adults, but not for adult participants. In addition, the relationship between narcissism and observer-reported neuroticism was weakly negative for undergraduate students, but significant and positive for their mothers. Taken together, these results suggest that narcissism is more beneficial for adolescents and emerging adults than for adults. Both sets of analyses also pointed to the importance of studying narcissism as a multifaceted construct. Findings are discussed with respect to personality development theories that emphasize adult role adoption.

Questions to Consider:

1. Compare and contrast the methods of self and observer ratings. Cognitive Domain: Comprehension

2. How does the research method of observer-rating impact the study of personality? Cognitive Domain: Analysis

3. Psychoanalytic theories have suggested that an inflated sense of self might be ______. Cognitive Domain: Comprehension

  1. harmful
  2. maladaptive
  3. dysfunctional
  4. beneficial

Article 3: Turner, S. F., Cardinal, L. B., & Burton, R. M. (2015). Research design for mixed methods: A triangulation-based framework and roadmap. Organizational Research Methods, 20(2). doi:10.1177/1094428115610808


Learning Objective: 1 & 2

Summary: Abstract: All methods individually are flawed, but these limitations can be mitigated through mixed methods research, which combines methodologies to provide better answers to our research questions. In this study, we develop a research design framework for mixed methods work that is based on the principles of triangulation. Core elements for the research design framework include theoretical purpose, i.e., theory development and/or theory testing; and methodological purpose, i.e., prioritizing generalizability, precision in control and measurement, and authenticity of context. From this foundation, we consider how the multiple methodologies are linked together to accomplish the theoretical purpose, focusing on three types of linking processes: convergent triangulation, holistic triangulation, and convergent and holistic triangulation. We then consider the implications of these linking processes for the theory at hand, taking into account the following theoretical attributes: generality/specificity, simplicity/complexity, and accuracy/inaccuracy. Based on this research design framework, we develop a roadmap that can serve as a design guide for organizational scholars conducting mixed methods research studies.

Questions to Consider:

1. Define and discuss what is meant by mixed methods regarding research methodology. Cognitive Domain: Analysis

2.  ______ refers to using multiple, different approaches to generate better understanding of a given theory or phenomenon. Cognitive Domain: Knowledge

  1. Comparative analysis
  2. Triangulation
  3. Multifaceted
  4. Variegated.

3.Like any good research project, an early objective for scholars is to identify an intriguing ______. Cognitive Domain: Comprehension

  1. research population
  2. research methodology
  3. research demographic
  4. research question