The disaggregation of within-person and between-person effects in longitudinal models of change.

By P. Curran, Daniel J. Bauer. Annual Review of Psychology, 2011

1,845 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f2f11486bddb44efc23238f74c4b16f24af6e915

How researchers see this paper

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

In Applied Psychology

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Perceived progress variability and entrepreneurial effort intensity: The moderating role of venture goal commitment (2015, background): “Curran and Bauer (2011) suggested that in yearly assessments, time varying constructs are expected to disclose a more systematic growth pattern.”
The effect of positive work reflection during leisure time on affective well-being: Results from three diary studies (2016, background): “In understanding the effects of positive work reflection on well-being, considering both within-person and betweenperson effects is important because they are informative for different research questions (Curran & Bauer, 2011; Dalal et al., 2014).”
Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling (2nd Edition) (2013, result): “…of age-related differences from aging-related change in life satisfaction, and is consistent with the authors’, as well as others’ (e.g., Curran & Bauer, 2011; Hoffman & Stawski, 2009) repeated assertion for disambiguating variability in predictors so between- and within-group or…”
At the Frontiers of Modeling Intensive Longitudinal Data: Dynamic Structural Equation Models for the Affective Measurements from the COGITO Study (2018, neutral): “…the convention is to de-trend data before considering further relationships between variables (e.g., Chatfield, 2004), and this approach has also been advocated by some in panel research and intensive longitudinal studies (e.g., Berry &Willough by, 2017; Curran & Bauer, 2011; Wang et al., 2012).”
Ambulatory Assessment: New adventures in characterizing dynamic processes (2016, positive): “…suited to assess within-individual processes, producing a rich clinical picture, allowing for hypothesis testing within and between individuals (Curran & Bauer, 2011), and minimizing many heuristic biases of self-report (e.g., peak–end rule; Fredrickson & Kahneman, 1993; Shiffman et al., 1997).”
Social cognitive theory and physical activity: Mechanisms of behavior change, critique, and legacy (2019, background): “…‘when someone scores highly—relative to his/her own mean score—on self-efficacy at a given point in time, s/he also scores highly—relative to his/her own mean score—on optimism at that point in time; an excellent review of these multi-level considerations is provided by Curran & Bauer, 2011).”
Scientific Contributions of Within-Person Research in Management: Making the Juice Worth the Squeeze (2018, background): “A focus on withinperson variability offers a different paradigm for understanding organizational phenomena (Curran & Bauer, 2011; Dalal, Bhave, & Fiset, 2014; Fisher & To, 2012; Uy, Foo, & Aguinis, 2010), emphasizing that individuals are not static entities but, rather, that their states,…”
Having a creative day: understanding entrepreneurs’ daily idea generation through a recovery lens (2018, methodology): “Second, there is related evidence in research on employees that documents substantial within-person fluctuations in daily creativity (Bledow et al., 2012) and indicates that we cannot simply generalize from between- to within-person differences (Binnewies and Wörnlein, 2011; Curran and Bauer, 2011).”
Fostering task and adaptive performance through employee well-being: The role of servant leadership (2020, background): “Analyses of within-person changes also provide a more accurate test of psychological theories that typically postulate what happens within a given individual, rather than expecting solely differences between persons (Curran & Bauer, 2011).”
The Gaussian Graphical Model in Cross-Sectional and Time-Series Data (2016, methodology): “In short, we extend the methodology of Bringmann et al. (2013) by within-subject centering and by adding subject sample means as between-subjects predictors (as discussed by e.g., Ho ﬀ man & Stawski, 2009; Curran & Bauer, 2011; Hamaker & Grasman, 2014).”