Emergence of polarized opinions from free association networks

We developed a method that can identify polarized public opinions by finding modules in a network of statistically related free word associations. Associations to the cue “migrant” were collected from two independent and comprehensive samples in Hungary (N1 = 505, N2 = 505). The co-occurrence-based relations of the free word associations reflected emotional similarity, and the modules of the association network were validated with well-established measures. The positive pole of the associations was gathered around the concept of “Refugees” who need help, whereas the negative pole associated asylum seekers with “Violence”. The results were relatively consistent in the two independent samples. We demonstrated that analyzing the modular organization of association networks can be a tool for identifying the most important dimensions of public opinion about a relevant social issue without using predefined constructs

Developing "personality" taxonomies: Metatheoretical and methodological rationales underlying selection approaches, methods of data generation and reduction principles

Taxonomic "personality" models are widely used in research and applied fields. This article applies the Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals (TPS-Paradigm) to scrutinise the three methodological steps that are required for developing comprehensive “personality” taxonomies: 1) the approaches used to select the phenomena and events to be studied, 2) the methods used to generate data about the selected phenomena and events and 3) the reduction principles used to extract the “most important” individual-specific variations for constructing “personality” taxonomies. Analyses of some currently popular taxonomies reveal frequent mismatches between the researchers’ explicit and implicit metatheories about “personality” and the abilities of previous methodologies to capture the particular kinds of phenomena toward which they are targeted. Serious deficiencies that preclude scientific quantifications are identified in standardised questionnaires, psychology’s established standard method of investigation. These mismatches and deficiencies derive from the lack of an explicit formulation and critical reflection on the philosophical and metatheoretical assumptions being made by scientists and from the established practice of radically matching the methodological tools to researchers’ preconceived ideas and to pre-existing statistical theories rather than to the particular phenomena and individuals under study. These findings raise serious doubts about the ability of previous taxonomies to appropriately and comprehensively reflect the phenomena towards which they are targeted and the structures of individual-specificity occurring in them. The article elaborates and illustrates with empirical examples methodological principles that allow researchers to appropriately meet the metatheoretical requirements and that are suitable for comprehensively exploring individuals’ “personality”