Significant samples: The psychological study of eminent individuals.

Abstract

Psychologists occasionally study eminent individuals, such as Nobel laureates, U.S. presidents, Olympic athletes, chess grandmasters, movie stars, and even distinguished psychologists. Studies using such significant samples may be differentiated along 7 distinct dimensions: qualitative versus quantitative, single versus multiple case, nomothetic versus idiographic, confirmatory versus exploratory, crosssectional versus longitudinal, micro versus macro analytical units, and direct versus indirect assessments. However, the vast majority of psychological inquiries may be clustered into just 4 types: historiometric, psychometric, psychobiographical, and comparative. After presenting the intrinsic and extrinsic justifications for studying famous persons, the main methodological issues concerning sampling, measurement, and analysis are discussed. The future prospects of significant samples in psychological research are then briefly examined.Empirical journal articles in psychology almost invariably commence their methods section with a subsection in which the researchers define the "subjects" or "participants" of the study (American Psychological Association, 1994). This sample specification comes first because all subsequent procedures and analytical strategies are usually contingent on that choice. An experimental manipulation or psychometric instrument that is indubitably appropriate for one sample might be manifestly inappropriate for another (e.g., whether to use an intelligence test designed for children or adults). In psychology, this sample description is especially critical. Few sciences feature the same diversity of entities that might serve as subjects in psychological research: human beings of every age, gender, ethnicity, occupation, and capacity; animals ranging from mammals, birds, and fish to insects, mollusks, and worms. Yet as diverse as these various subject pools may be, they all seem to have one thing in common: The individuals that compose This article is based on a paper read at the Internationa!

Creative Development as Acquired Expertise: Theoretical Issues and an Empirical Test

“…The controversy centers on the relative scientific utility of conventional significance tests (inferential statistics) versus effect sizes (descriptive statistics). In the current investigation, this debate assumes a rather distinctive form (Simonton, 1999c). Clearly, the sample was not randomly drawn from some indefinitely large population.…”

Film Awards as Indicators of Cinematic Creativity and Achievement: A Quantitative Comparison of the Oscars and Six Alternatives

“…On the contrary, these films were selected precisely because they displayed sufficient creativity or other attainment that they were deemed worthy of a nomination for an award from at least one of seven major organizations. In other words, the movies constituted a "significant sample" in which the descriptive statistics (effect sizes) have inherent value independent of any generalization to some larger population (Simonton, 1999;see also Cohen, 1994). In any event, effect sizes reported throughout the present article were gauged by descriptive statistics, namely, sample reliability coefficients and, most commonly, sample correlation coefficients.…”

Sampling in Interview-Based Qualitative Research: A Theoretical and Practical Guide

“…If the objective is psychobiography, an individual could be chosen due to his or her historical or theoretical significance -this is called the significant sample approach (Simonton, 1999). If the objective is theoretical insight, a strategy of intensity sampling can be used -this aims to locate an information-rich case, chosen specifically to be insightful, comprehensive, articulate and/or honest (Miles & Hurberman, 1994).…”