Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:51:23.534Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aligning psychological assessment with psychological science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2010

Daniel Cervone
Daniel Cervone
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology (mc 285), University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607-7137. [email protected]://www.psch.uic.edu/dcervone.asp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Network analysis is a promising step forward in efforts to align psychological assessment with explanatory theory in psychological science. The implications of Cramer et al.'s analysis are quite general. Networks analysis may illuminate functional relations not only among observable behaviors that comprise psychological disorders, but among cognitive and affective processes that causally contribute to everyday experience and action.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 33 , Issue 2-3 , June 2010 , pp. 152 - 153
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahn, W., Flanagan, E., Marsh, J. K. & Sanislow, C. (2006) Beliefs about essences and the reality of mental disorders. Psychological Science 17:759–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bandura, A. (1997) Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. & Cervone, D. (1986) Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in cognitive motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 38:92–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (1999) Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22:577–609.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J. & Van Heerden, J., (2003) The theoretical status of latent variables. Psychological Review 110:203–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cervone, D. (1991) The two disciplines of personality psychology. Psychological Science 6:371–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cervone, D. (1999) Bottom-up explanation in personality psychology: The case of cross-situational coherence. In: The coherence of personality: Social-cognitive bases of personality consistency, variability, and organization, ed. Cervone, D. & Shoda, Y., pp. 303–41. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Cervone, D. (2004) The architecture of personality. Psychological Review 111:183–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cervone, D. (2005) Personality architecture: Within-person structures and processes. Annual Review of Psychology 56:423–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cervone, D., Caldwell, T. L., Fiori, M., Orom, H., Shadel, W. G., Kassel, J. & Artistico, D. (2008) What underlies appraisals? Experimentally testing a knowledge-and-appraisal model of personality architecture among smokers contemplating high-risk situations. Journal of Personality 76:929–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cervone, D., Kopp, D. A., Schaumann, L. & Scott, W. D. (1994) Mood, self-efficacy, and performance standards: Lower moods induce higher standards for performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67:499–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cervone, D., Shadel, W. G. & Jencius, S. (2001) Social-cognitive theory of personality assessment. Personality and Social Psychology Review 5:33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cervone, D., Shadel, W. G., Smith, R. E. & Fiori, M. (2006) Self-regulation and personality science: Reply to the commentaries. Applied Psychology: An International Review 55:470–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1992) Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1983) Modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haynes, S. N., Mumma, G. H. & Pinson, C. (2009) Idiographic assessment: Conceptual and psychometric foundations of individualized behavioral assessment. Clinical Psychology Review 29:179–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kagan, J. (1998) Three seductive ideas. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krueger, R. F. (1999) The structure of common mental disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry 56:921–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McClelland, J. L. & Rogers, T. T. (2003) The parallel distributed processing approach to semantic cognition. Nature Reviews: Neuroscience 4:1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mischel, W. (1968) Personality and assessment. Wiley.Google Scholar
Mischel, W. (1973) Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review 80:252–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mischel, W. & Shoda, Y. (1995) A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review 102:246–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mor, N. & Winquist, J. (2002) Self-focused attention and negative affect: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 128:638–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sander, D., Grandjean, D. & Scherer, K. R. (2005) A systems approach to appraisal mechanisms in emotion. Neural Networks 18:317–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, L. A. & Fox, N. A. (2002) Individual differences in childhood shyness: Origins, malleability, and developmental course. In: Advances in personality science, ed. Cervone, D. & Mischel, W., pp. 83–105. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953/2001) Philosophical investigations. Blackwell. (Original work published in 1953.)Google Scholar