Hermeneutics and Personality Assessment
Abstract
The scientific and philosophical background of personality assessment is examined, including review of hermeneutic methods in the human sciences. Following a keyword search and psychological test usage surveys, it was concluded that the nomothetic scientific orientation predominates in forensic psychology. A topic debated since the middle 19th century, the triumph of the nomothetic has implications for personality assessment models, interpretive methods, and description of human lives. This paper contextualizes personality assessment in 19th and 20th century hermeneutical philosophy, including the status of the nomothetic/idiographic divide. Hermeneutic philosophy--represented in the work of Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger, Bultmann, Gadamer, and Ricoeur--offers rich and relevant foundations of the art and science of personality assessment. The paper advances a research program and integrative methodology for interpreting human lives. Accommodations for an interpretive personality assessment are proposed, utilizing traditional and innovative applications. Hermeneutic praxis informs personality assessment methods reflecting the dialogical and recursive process of interpretation, application of the hermeneutic circle to assessment data, and the self-understanding of the practitioner. Forensic personology fosters epistemological and methodological integration with a focus on the whole person in the legal context.References
Alexander, I. E. (1990). Personology: Method and content in personality assessment and psychobiography. Chapel Hill, NC: Duke University Press.
Betti, E.(1962), Die Hermeneutik als allgemeine Methodik der Geisteswissenschaften, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.
Bleicher, J. (1980). Contemporary hermeneutics: Hermeneutics as method, philosophy and critique. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bultmann, R. (1950/1984). The Problem of Hermeneutics. In R. Bultmann, Essays Philosophical and Theological. London: SCM Press.
Browning, D. (2003). Feminism, family and women’s rights†A hermeneutical realist perspective. Zygon, 38, 317-332.
Bruhn, A. R. (1992). The early memories procedures: a projective test of autobiographical memory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58, 1, 1-15.
Chessick, R. (1990). Hermeneutics for psychotherapists. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 49, 256-273.
Clancy, T (1999). Schleiermacher’s Early Lectures of hermeneutics: The 1805 first draft and the 1809/10 general hermeneutics. Lewiston, NY: Edward Mellen Press.
Cleckey, H. M. (1988). The Mask of Sanity: An Attempt to Clarify Some Issues about the So-called Psychopathic Personality. 5th Edition. Augusta, GA: Emily Cleckley.
Cramer, P. (1991). The development of defense mechanisms: Theory, research, and assessment. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Crease, R. (1997). Introduction. In R. Crease (Ed.). Hermeneutics and the Natural Sciences. Springer Netherlands.
Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject: Historical origins of psychological research. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dilthey, W., (1976). Selected Writings. H. P. Rickman (Ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dowdle, M. W. (2003). Deconstructing Graeme: Observations on “pragmatic psychology,†forensics and the institutional epistemology of the courts. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 9, 3-4, 301-333.
Faigman, D. L., & Monahan, J. (2002). Psychological evidence at the dawn of the law’s scientific age. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 631-659.
Finn, S. E., & Tonsager, M. E. (1997). Information-gathering and therapeutic models of
assessment: Complimentary paradigms. Psychological Assessment, 9, 4, 374-385.
Fischer, C. T. (1985). Individualizing psychological assessment. Monterey, CA: Broke/Call Publishing Company.
Fishman, D. P. (1999). The case for pragmatic psychology. New York: Now York University Press.
Fishman, D. B. & Goodman-Delahunty, J.G. (2010. Pragmatic psychology. In J. M. Brown, & E. A. Campbell ( (Eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Forensic Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gadamer, H. G. (1966). The universality of the hermeneutical problem. In G. L. Ornstein & A. D. Schrift (Eds.), The Hermeneutic Tradition: From Ast to Ricoeur. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Gadamer, H. G. (1995). Truth and Method (2nd rev. ed.). New York: Continuum.
Geertz, C. (1974). From the native’s point of view: On the nature of anthropological understanding. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 28, 1, 26-43.
Gergen, K. J. (1988). If persons are texts. In S. B. Messer, L. A. Sass, & R. L. Wooolfolk (Eds.). Hermeneutics and psychological theory: Interpretive perspectives on personality, psychotherapy, and psychopathology. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Foote, W. (2009). Forensic Evaluations advance scientific theory: Assessing causation of harm. Pragmatic case studies in psychotherapy, 5, 38-52.
Grondin, J. (2014). Do Gadamer and Ricoeur have the same understanding of hermeneutics? In M. Xie (ed.). The Agon of Interpretation: Towards a Critical Intercultural Hermeneutics.
Toronto: Toronto University Press.
Hancock, J. T., Woodworth, M. T., & Porter, S. (2011). Hungry like the wolf: A word-pattern analysis of the language of psychopaths. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18, 102-
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time. J. MacQuarrie & E. Robinson (Trans.). New York: Harper. [Original work published in in German 1927].
Heilbrun, K., DeMatteo, D., & Marczyk, G. (2004). Pragmatic psychology, forensic mental health assessment, and the case of Thomas Johnson. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10, 1/2, 31-70.
Hesse, M. (1980). Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science. Brighton, England: Harvester Press.
Hirsch, E. D. (1967). Validity in interpretation. New York: Yale University Press.
Kockelmans, J. J. (1993). Ideas for A Hermeneutic Phenomenology of the Natural Sciences.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Kovary, Z. (2015). Psychobiography as a method. The revival of studying lives: New perspectives in personality and creativity research. European Journal of Psychology, 7, 4, 739-777.
Lamiell, J. T. (1998). ‘Nomothetic’ and ‘idiographic’: Contrasting Windelbrand’s understanding with contemporary usage. Theory & Psychology, 8, 23-28.
Lerner, P. (1991). Psychoanalytic theory and the Rorschach. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.
Lundh, L-G. (2015). The person as a focus of research-The contributions of Windelbrand, Stern, Allport, Lamiell, and Magnusson. Journal for Person-Oriented Research, 1, 15-33.
Mahoney, M. J. ( 1989). Scientific psychology and radical behaviorism. American Psychologist, 44, 11, 1372-1377.
Martin, J., & Thompson, J. (2003). Psychotherapy as the interpretation of being: Hermeneutic perspectives on psychotherapy. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 16, 1-16.
Melton, G., Petrila, N. G., & Slobogin, C. (2007). Psychological Evaluation for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers (3rd edition). New York: Guilford Press.
Murchison, C. (1930). William Stern. In A History of Psychology in Autobiography, vol. 1. (C. Murchison, ed.). Worcester, Mass: Clark University Press.
Nelson, E. S. (2010). Hermeneutics: Schleiermacher and Dilthey. In History of Continental Philosophy: Volume 2; Nineteenth-Century Philosophy: Revolutionary Responses to the Existing Order (1840-1900), ed. Alan D. Schrift and Daniel Conway, Chesham:
Acumen Press, 139-160.
Nenon, T. (1995). Hermeneutical truth and the structure of human experience: Gadamer’s Critique of Dilthey. In L. K. Schmidt (Ed.). The Specter of Relativism: Truth, Dialogue, and Phronesis in Philosophical Hermeneutics. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University
Press.
Ovens, M. (2013). The use of hermeneutics in the criminological interpretation of forensic documents: A case study. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 23, 4, 661-668.
Packer, M. J. (1985). Hermeneutic inquiry in the study of human conduct. American Psychologist, 40, 10, 1081-1093.
Palmer, R. E. (1969). Hermeneutics: Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamer. Evanston IL: Northwestern University Press.
Pandora, K. (1997). Rebels within the Ranks: Psychologists’ Critique of Scientific Authority and Democratic Realities in New Deal America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Petty, J. (2014). Extreme psychopathy: Document review of male sexual offenders who score extremely high on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist. Dissertation Abstracts International, volume 75 (1-B(E).
Pollitt, M. (2013). History, historiography, and the hermeneutics of the hard drive. In G. Peterson & S. Shenoi (Eds.), Advances in Digital Forensics IX.
Preston, J. (2014. Positivist and Post-Positivist Philosophy of Science. In A. Gardner, M. Lake, & U. Sommer (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Archaeological Theory. New York:
Oxford.
Ricoeur, P. (1981). Hermeneutics & the Human Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, O. C. (2011). The idiographic/nomothetic dichotomy: Tracing the historical origins of contemporary confusions. History & Philosophy of Psychology, 13, 32-39.
Runyan, W. M. (1983). Idiographic goals and methods in the study of lives. Journal of Personality, 51, 3, 413-437.
Sandage, S. J., Cook, K. V., Hill, P. C., Strawn, B. D., & Reimer, K. S. (2008). Hermeneutics and psychology: A review and dialectical model. Review of General Psychology, 12, 4, 344-364.
Schleiermacher, F. D. E., Wojcik, J., & Haas, R. (1978). The Hermeneutics: Outline of the 1819 lectures. New Literary History, 10, 1, 1-16.
Slobogin, C. (2003). Pragmatic forensic psychology: a means of “scientizing†expert testimony from mental health professionals? †Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 9, 3/4, 275-300.
Spence, D. (1990). Narrative truth and historical truth. New York: Norton.
Stein, M. B., Slavin-Mulford, J., Siefert, C. J., Sinclair, S. J., Renna, M., Malone, J., Bello, I., & Blais, M. A. (2014). SCORS-G stimulus characteristics of select thematic apperception test cards. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 3, 339-49.
Stiles, W. B. (2009). Logical operations in theory-building case. Pragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy, 5, 3, 9022.
Von Wright, H. (1971). Explanation and understanding. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Walsh, R. T., Teo, T., & Baydala, A. (2014). A Critical History and Philosophy of Psychology: Diversity of Context, Thought, and Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Westen, D., Lohr, N., Silk, K., & Kerber, K. (1989). Measuring object relations and social cognition using the TAT: A scoring manual. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Westen, D. (2002). Clinical Diagnostic Interview. Unpublished manual, Emory University. Retrieved June 4, 2007, from www.psychsystems. net/lab.
Woike, B., & McAdams, D. (2001). TAT commentary: A response to Lilienfeld, Woods, & Garb. Observer, http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/tat-
commentary#.WGGZBvkrKUk.
Woolfolk, R. L., Sass, L., A., & Messer, S. B. (1988). Introduction to hermeneutics. In S. B. Messer, L. A. Sass, & R. L. Woolfolk (Eds.). Hermeneutics and Psychological Theory: Interpretive Perspective on Personality, Psychotherapy, and Psychopathology. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Youngs, D., & Canter, D. V. (2012). Offenders’ crime narratives as revealed by the Narrative Roles Questionnaire. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57, 3, 289-311.
