Discuss idiographic and nomothetic approaches to research in psychology. [16 marks]
The idiographic approach in psychology focuses on collecting qualitative data and gaining a deeper
insight into human behaviour by studying unique individuals in depth. They do this through
conducting unstructured interviews and case studies. For example, Freud’s case study of Little Hans;
consisted on him gathering descriptions of his life recorded by Hans’ father and interpreting the
evidence to support his Oedipus theory claim. By contrast the nomothetic approach in psychology
focuses on collecting quantitative data by studying mass groups of people and then making
generalisations. Psychologists adopting this approach tend to carry out experiments of large samples
of people before analysing the results and creating general laws/principles. For instance, biological
psychologists have adopted this approach when trying to determine the causes of depression. They
have conducted experiments on a large mass of people and discovered that an imbalance of
serotonin plays a role in depression. This has led to them creating a generalisation that an imbalance
of neurotransmitters contribute to depression which is general law adopted by many.
An argument in favour of the idiographic approach is that is brings psychology back to an individual
level rather than simply making generalisations like the nomothetic approach does. This is because
an idiographic approaches focuses on the individual, therefore they use case studies and
unstructured interviews to gain a much more in-depth insight into a specific individual to better
understand a topic area. For example, a single case study e.g. looking at brain damaged individuals
such as HM can lead to a better understanding of memory stores than studying mass groups of
people. Furthermore, a single case study e.g. the study of HM may generate further hypotheses for
study which contributes to a better overall understanding of memory. Therefore, a flaw of the
nomothetic approach is that it ignores the role of unique individuals in providing us with a better
insight into human behaviour like the idiographic approach.
However, an argument in favour of the nomothetic approach is that it is deemed to be more
scientific than the idiographic approach and could be useful in predicting behaviour. For example, as
mentioned earlier, the nomothetic approach can be useful in understanding causes of depression in
a large group of people (e.g. serotonin imbalance) then use this data to mass-produce drugs (SSRIs)
to treat mental illnesses based on the quantitative data and analyses. The idiographic approach, on
the other hand, would not be able to do this effectively as it would be far too time-consuming to
produce personal therapies for unique individuals. Therefore, the idiographic approach is useful in
predicting behaviour and creating mass treatments to benefit society. However, drug treatments
may not work for all individuals as some may be more suited to alternative therapies.
An argument against the idiographic approach is that it is much more time consuming than the
nomothetic approach. Both approaches are based on collecting large amounts of data, however, it is
usually the idiographic approach which collects far more data about one person in comparison to
the nomothetic approach is concerned about collating data from a larger number of people. The
nomothetic approach is therefore more practical as it can gather more data for more people in the
same time frame, idiographic approach psychologists take to gather data on one person. Therefore,
practically, the nomothetic approach would suit psychologists better.
Overall, after considering both sides of the argument, it can be concluded that psychologists don’t
just focus on a single approach when conducting research and instead combine the two. For
example, Millon & Davis (1996) suggested that research sometimes starts as nomothetic and once
laws have been produce, they can then focus on a more idiographic understanding. For example
drug therapies should focus on general principles first – then create more individualized therapies
for people which means that a combination of both approaches may be more effective.
The idiographic approach in psychology focuses on collecting qualitative data and gaining a deeper
insight into human behaviour by studying unique individuals in depth. They do this through
conducting unstructured interviews and case studies. For example, Freud’s case study of Little Hans;
consisted on him gathering descriptions of his life recorded by Hans’ father and interpreting the
evidence to support his Oedipus theory claim. By contrast the nomothetic approach in psychology
focuses on collecting quantitative data by studying mass groups of people and then making
generalisations. Psychologists adopting this approach tend to carry out experiments of large samples
of people before analysing the results and creating general laws/principles. For instance, biological
psychologists have adopted this approach when trying to determine the causes of depression. They
have conducted experiments on a large mass of people and discovered that an imbalance of
serotonin plays a role in depression. This has led to them creating a generalisation that an imbalance
of neurotransmitters contribute to depression which is general law adopted by many.
An argument in favour of the idiographic approach is that is brings psychology back to an individual
level rather than simply making generalisations like the nomothetic approach does. This is because
an idiographic approaches focuses on the individual, therefore they use case studies and
unstructured interviews to gain a much more in-depth insight into a specific individual to better
understand a topic area. For example, a single case study e.g. looking at brain damaged individuals
such as HM can lead to a better understanding of memory stores than studying mass groups of
people. Furthermore, a single case study e.g. the study of HM may generate further hypotheses for
study which contributes to a better overall understanding of memory. Therefore, a flaw of the
nomothetic approach is that it ignores the role of unique individuals in providing us with a better
insight into human behaviour like the idiographic approach.
However, an argument in favour of the nomothetic approach is that it is deemed to be more
scientific than the idiographic approach and could be useful in predicting behaviour. For example, as
mentioned earlier, the nomothetic approach can be useful in understanding causes of depression in
a large group of people (e.g. serotonin imbalance) then use this data to mass-produce drugs (SSRIs)
to treat mental illnesses based on the quantitative data and analyses. The idiographic approach, on
the other hand, would not be able to do this effectively as it would be far too time-consuming to
produce personal therapies for unique individuals. Therefore, the idiographic approach is useful in
predicting behaviour and creating mass treatments to benefit society. However, drug treatments
may not work for all individuals as some may be more suited to alternative therapies.
An argument against the idiographic approach is that it is much more time consuming than the
nomothetic approach. Both approaches are based on collecting large amounts of data, however, it is
usually the idiographic approach which collects far more data about one person in comparison to
the nomothetic approach is concerned about collating data from a larger number of people. The
nomothetic approach is therefore more practical as it can gather more data for more people in the
same time frame, idiographic approach psychologists take to gather data on one person. Therefore,
practically, the nomothetic approach would suit psychologists better.
Overall, after considering both sides of the argument, it can be concluded that psychologists don’t
just focus on a single approach when conducting research and instead combine the two. For
example, Millon & Davis (1996) suggested that research sometimes starts as nomothetic and once
laws have been produce, they can then focus on a more idiographic understanding. For example
drug therapies should focus on general principles first – then create more individualized therapies
for people which means that a combination of both approaches may be more effective.
