4.4 Article

Toward a Unified Framework for the Study of Between-Person and Within-Person Structures: Building a Bridge Between Two Research Paradigms

期刊

MULTIVARIATE BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH
卷 49, 期 3, 页码 193-213

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00273171.2014.889593

关键词

-

资金

  1. Max Planck Society
  2. Max Planck Society's innovation fund [M.FE.A.BILD0005]
  3. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation's Sofja Kovalevskaja Award
  4. German Research Foundation (DFG) [KFG 163]
  5. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz award of the German Research Foundation
  6. BMBF (CAI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The vast majority of empirical research in the behavioral sciences is based on the analysis of between-person variation. In contrast, much of applied psychology is concerned with the analysis of variation within individuals. Furthermore, the mechanisms specified by psychological theories generally operate within, rather than across, individuals. This disconnect between research practice, applied demands, and psychological theories constitutes a major threat to the conceptual integrity of the field. Following groundbreaking earlier work, we propose a conceptual framework that distinguishes within-person (WP) and between-person (BP) sources of variation in psychological constructs. By simultaneously considering both sources of variation, it is shown how to identify possible reasons for nonequivalence of BP and WP structures as well as establishing areas of convergence. For this purpose, we first introduce the concept of conditional equivalence as a way to study partial structural equivalence of BP and WP structures in the presence of unconditional nonequivalence. Second, we demonstrate the construction of likelihood planes to explore the causes of structural nonequivalence. Third, we examine 4 common causes for unconditional nonequivalence-autoregression, subgroup differences, linear trends, and cyclic trends-and demonstrate how to account for them. Fourth, we provide an empirical example on BP and WP differences in attentiveness.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据