Why researchers should think "within-person": A paradigmatic rationale.

By E. Hamaker. 2012

560 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/823d60a16d9d6730ffb1bfc2a0fc05c17ba63d3c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Small Sample Size Solutions (2020, background): “However, if an effect is detected at the group level this does not imply that the effect is true for each individual (Hamaker, 2012).”
Scientific Contributions of Within-Person Research in Management: Making the Juice Worth the Squeeze (2018, background): “, 2014: 1399), within-person techniques facilitate the chance to add value to the field through the capacity to ask and answer substantively different research questions (Hamaker, 2012) about withinperson fluctuation that takes place over time.”
The Gaussian Graphical Model in Cross-Sectional and Time-Series Data (2016, methodology): “Hamaker (2012) described an example of how within-and between-subject effects can strongly differ from each other.”
A cognitive latent variable model for the simultaneous analysis of behavioral and personality data. (2014, background): “As has been pointed out by Estes (1956, 2002), Hamaker (2012), and Heathcote, Brown, and Mewhort (2000), averaging artifacts can lead to biased estimates and errors in inference.”
A Tutorial on Regularized Partial Correlation Networks (2016, background): “Several authors criticize cross-sectional analysis for not being able to separate within- and between-person variation (Molenaar, 2004; Hamaker, 2012; Bos et al., 2017), and propose to study longitudinal data in order to capture within-person relationships (Bringmann et al.”
The effect of positive work reflection during leisure time on affective well-being: Results from three diary studies (2016, background): “According to various authors (e.g., Dalal et al., 2014; Hamaker, 2012), it is critical to consider within-person and between-person relationships simultaneously because the relationship between two constructs at within-person level may differ from the relationship between the analogous constructs…”