The Use of Intensive Longitudinal Methods in Explanatory Personality Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intensive longitudinal methods (ILMs), in which data are gathered from participants multiple times with short intervals (typically 24 hours or less apart), have gained considerable ground in personality research and may be useful in exploring causality in both classic personality trait models and more novel contextualized personality state models. We briefly review the various terms and uses of ILMs in various fields of psychology and present five main strategies that can help researchers infer causality in ILM studies. We discuss the use of temporal precedence to establish causality, through both lagged analyses and natural experiments; the use of external measures and peer reports to go beyond self–report data; delving deeper into repeated measures to derive new indices; the use of contextual factors occurring during the measurement period; and combining experimental methods and ILMs. These strategies are illustrated by examples from existing research and by new empirical findings from two dyadic daily diary studies ( N = 80 and N = 108 couples) and an experience sampling method study of personality states ( N = 52). We conclude by offering a short checklist for designing ILM studies with causality in mind and look at the applicability of these strategies in the intersection of personality psychology and other psychological research domains. Copyright © 2018 European Association of Personality Psychology
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".