Real evidence for the failure of the Jamesian perspective or more evidence in support of it?
Hardy and Moriarty (2006) presented evidence in support of James's (1890) individual importance hypothesis using a new methodology. Marsh (in press) criticized the Hardy and Moriarty approach, claiming that it did not constitute a valid test of the hypothesis and that in his article he had produced more evidence against it. In this article, we refute both these claims and argue instead that Marsh's individually weighted-averages method does not constitute a valid test of the hypothesis. We also assert that his new analyses actually offer further evidence in support of the Jamesian perspective. Finally, we direct attention toward questionable assumptions that appear to underpin Marsh's approach, and we try to point a way forward for future research in this area.
Hardy
Lew
L
Bangor University, UK. l.hardy@bangor.ac.uk
Leone
Christopher
C
D000124:Achievement; D002605:Character; D006801:Humans; D007206:Individuality; D008960:Models, Psychological; D009497:Neurotic Disorders / Q000523:psychology; D010555:Personality Inventory / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D011594:Psychometrics; D012044:Regression Analysis; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012649:Self Concept; D012647:Self-Assessment