Idiographic v nomothetic

Nomothetic approach AO1

• Aims to produce general laws of behaviour by studying large groups of people

• Focuses on what humans have in common, rather than individual differences

• Associated with approaches that are reductionist, determinist & use scientific methods such as lab experiments, statistical analyses & hypotheses

• Researchers collect quantitative data which can be used statistically to identity patterns, averages & correlations

Nomothetic topic link AO2

• Behaviourist approach

• Skinner & Pavlov conducted controlled lab experiments with animals to identify general principles of classical conditioning (learning via experiences) & operant conditioning (learning via consequences), which were then generalised to all humans

Idiographic approach AO1

• Focuses on the unique characteristics & subjective experiences of individuals as it believes humans are unique entities

• Doesn’t attempt to create generalisable laws of behaviour

• Studies individuals rather than large groups of people

• Associated with RMs that produce qualitative data, such as unstructured interviews, thematic analysis and case studies

Idiographic topic link AO2

• Humanist approach

• Focuses on the subjective experiences of the individual

• Rogers argues behaviour can only be understood through understanding a person’s phenomenological perspective (how they see and interpret the world).

• For example, in client-centred therapy, therapists use unstructured interviews to explore an individual’s self-concept, ideal self, and level of congruence. Each client’s experiences, values, and feelings are treated as unique, rather than being compared to population norms.

Nomothetic AO3

• P - scientific credibility as it uses objective & controlled research methods.

• E - by focusing on quantifiable variables and using standardised procedures, nomothetic research reduces the influence of researcher bias and subjective interpretation. This increases objectivity, meaning findings are less influenced by personal values and are more likely to reflect genuine behavioural patterns. Furthermore, the use of large samples allows for statistical analysis, which enables psychologists to determine whether findings are significant rather than due to chance, strengthening internal validity. Because procedures are standardised, studies can be replicated, which is a key feature of scientific research and allows theories to be tested and refined over time. Identifying general laws enables psychologists to make testable predictions, a core feature of scientific explanation. This contributes to the development of falsifiable theories, which can be accepted or rejected based on empirical evidence.

• T - aligns closely with the scientific method, enhancing the credibility, reliability, and acceptance of psychology as a scientific discipline

• P - it tends to ignore individual differences by focusing on averages and general laws of behaviour.

• By reducing complex human behaviour to numerical data and population norms, the approach may overlook the unique experiences, motivations, and personal meanings that influence behaviour. As a result, explanations can become reductionist, failing to capture the full complexity of human behaviour. This has a significant impact in clinical practice as standardised diagnoses or treatments based on general patterns may be ineffective or inappropriate for some people. This is particularly problematic in areas such as mental health, where personal context and subjective experience play a crucial role in understanding and treating disorders. Furthermore, applying general laws to individuals can lead to labelling and stereotyping, which may negatively affect self-concept and behaviour.

• T - while the nomothetic approach is useful for identifying general trends, its failure to account for individual uniqueness limits its explanatory depth and practical effectiveness

Idiographic AO3

• P - criticised for being unscientific

• E - typically relies on qualitative data, such as unstructured interviews, case studies, and self report which are open to subjective interpretation. This means the conclusions drawn can reflect the researcher’s biases rather than universal truths, making them less replicable. They are also subject to participant biases, such as social desirability and acquiescence bias (most apparent on questionnaires). Because idiographic studies focus on individuals rather than large samples, statistical analysis is rarely possible. Without quantifiable data, it is difficult to measure relationships between variables or test hypotheses, limiting the approach’s ability to produce falsifiable predictions. Furthermore, the lack of controlled, standardised procedures reduces reliability, as repeating the study with another participant may produce very different results. This limits the ability to build general laws or cumulative knowledge, which are key goals of scientific psychology.

• t - overall, the idiographic approach’s avoidance of scientific methods enhances rich, detailed understanding, but it significantly reduces its scientific credibility and limits its contribution to evidence-based psychology

Compromise AO3

• P - researchers now agree that the nomothetic & idiographic approaches compliment each other rather than oppose each other and research now uses a combination of both. Holt claims that in reality the idiographic approach is an updated nomothetic approach.

• E - the cognitive approach uses idiographic research methods to create general laws of behaviour which can be generalised, therefore fusing together both approaches. For example, the case study of patient KF found that KF’s STM for auditory info was impaired but his visual info was still intact. These findings were generalised to all humans, suggesting there are different types of STM (phonological loop & visuo-spatial sketchpad), leading to the development of the WMM.

• T - combining approaches represents a middle ground, ensuring that research is both evidence-based and person-centred, addressing criticisms of reductionism and subjectivity.