We agree with Arocha that the common and exclusive focus on aggregate results of psychological studies creates problems. While a paradigm shift toward idiographic approaches or control theory might help, we argue that traditional approaches can accomplish more if measures of variability are taken seriously. We discuss three kinds of studies: within-person treatment studies, questionnaire-based studies, and replication studies. For each of these, we suggest ways to improve psychological meaningfulness by investigating variability surrounding aggregate results, without ending up in an either–or choice between aggregate results and separate, individual results.

我们同意 Arocha 的观点，即对心理学研究的总体结果的共同和排他性的关注会产生问题。虽然向具体方法或控制理论的范式转变可能会有所帮助，但我们认为，如果认真对待可变性的措施，传统方法可以取得更大的成就。我们讨论三种研究：个体治疗研究、基于问卷的研究和复制研究。对于其中的每一个，我们建议通过调查围绕汇总结果的可变性来提高心理意义的方法，而不会在汇总结果和单独的单个结果之间做出非此即彼的选择。