Criticism of psychobiography of celebrities

As referred to above, psychobiographical work has an ambiguous standing in personality psychology (Runyan, 1994; Schultz, 2005d), has gained popularity and acceptance, but has for a long time hardly been accepted in the broader field of psychology (Fouche, 2015; McAdams, 2005, 2006a, 2006b). In the following section, critical views on psychobiographical research will be presented.

Schultz (2005d) highlights that there are several advantages of conducting psychobiographical research: “Theories, or at least hypotheses, also emerge out of psychobiography” (Schultz, 2005d, p. 4). In addition, the study of lives brings various findings on single lives, thus “discovering what works and what doesn’t” (Schultz, 2005d, p. 4). However, this in-depth insight into a small number of individuals who are prominent has been criticised, particularly because the influence of the context of socio-political and economic factors and the impact of societal forces seem to be neglected (Le Goff, 1995). Runyan (1988a) emphasises that besides the elitist approach of psychobiography, it is worth studying outstanding individuals for the fact that scientific findings can also provide information on the context and the broader society.

However, one of the advantages of psychobiographical research is the assumption that psychobiography studies focus on real individual lives and that this is its main contribution in its own right: “making the person the focus of attention” (Perry, 2012, p. 134) and bringing the person back into psychology (Carlson, 1971).

In parallel to the criticisms of the historical sciences, critics from psychology have referred to psychobiography as a highly subjective, too interpretative, nonexperimental approach, which is too reliant on psychoanalysis and is not compatible with statistical and/or experimental psychology (Schultz, 2005d, p. 14). McAdams (2006a, 2006b) adds that - besides the criticism that psychobiographical studies are highly subjective - psychobiographies are criticised from a quantitative methodological viewpoint for lacking reliability and external validity. This is why Elms (2007) argues for the inclusion of statistical and quantitative approaches in psychobiographies to explore all the methodological options that can contribute to particularly the comparative analysis of biographic categories and frequencies and thereby contribute to statistical conclusions that derive from psychobiographical research.

Although psychobiographies mainly refer to single cases and individuals, what they have often been criticised for is that they offer a high degree of “relevance” (Schultz, 2005d, p. 5), not least through being made up of research that is “alive” (Elms, 1994, p. 13). Elms (1994) points out that particularly psychobiographical research has contributed to his complex understanding of human beings. Carlson (1971) mentions that personality needs to be studied by using extensive data - first- person, as well as third-person documents (Allport, 1961) - on a person’s life, taking into account the biographical facts and interpreting them in a contextualising way to gain deep understanding of the person and his/her life’s ways and the person’s identity. Therefore, psychobiographies need to be seen for what they are: an in-depth approach to understanding the individual. Countering the criticism on the mainstream of psychobiographies focusing on single cases, a new trend in psychobiographical work in terms of comparative psychobiographies can be recognised that has led to the analysis of dual cases and new methodological approaches of comparison (Elms, 2007). However, these comparative approaches are not used in this study.

At the same time, Runyan (1988a) emphasises that biography as a method of historical research is elitist, simplistic and reductionist. Reductionism in a psychobiographical context means that explanations as well as interpretations of a persons’ thoughts, behaviour, feelings and worldviews are reduced to a certain period, such as, for example, childhood experiences, a particular situation or trauma experienced or a specific relationship (Runyan, 1982). Schultz (2005d) elaborates in this context that psychobiographies can only contribute to an in-depth understanding of a person, if the explanation and interpretation of life events, behaviour, thoughts and attitudes are based on a broad base of data over the entire life span. It responds to Carlson’s (1971) question: “Where is the person in personality research?” and makes psychology as a discipline humanistic, yet scientific (McAdams, 2006a, 2006b).

Schultz (2005d, pp. 10-11) argues that psychobiographies can be criticised when they diagnose the subject of research or “pathologies” the individual studied. In these cases, psychobiographies do not contribute new insights or comprehensive knowledge on a person’s life, but rather stigmatise. Therefore, psychobiographies only make a positive contribution when they aim at explaining the entire person in an integrated way, by applying well-chosen theories, particularly since - according to Schultz (2005d, p. 12) - “psychobiography is only as good as the theory on which it rests.”

Several authors (Runyan, 1988b; Schultz, 2005a) have pointed out that psychobiographies are often bound to psychoanalytical frameworks and theories (Elms, 1994, p. 9). These frameworks are viewed as inadequate, reductionist and biased, with a focus on particular periods in life (e.g. childhood), which lack proper documentation or which are based on reconstructions done at a later time (McAdams, 2006a; Gay, 1988). However, Runyan (1984) has counter-argued that psychobiographies do not need to be based on psychoanalytic theories and frameworks and can use theories from other psychological disciplines, such as social psychology or developmental psychology. If the subject studied is an artistic figure, psychobiographies can even use the creative works to study the individual and his/ her psychological state (Schultz, 2005a). Kovary (2011, p. 758) adds that “For today’s psychobiographers, a broader theoretical arsenal is available” and psychobiographies are not reduced to certain theories and methodologies anymore, always focusing on the personal significance and not on the statistical significance through analysing single cases in-depth. Kovary (2011, p. 757) concludes by citing Schultz (2005d), who says that good psychobiography markers include cogency, narrative structure, comprehensiveness, data convergence, sudden coherence, logical soundness, consistency and viability. In contrast, so-called “bad psychobiography markers” include pathography, single cues, reconstruction, reductionism, peer theory choice and a proper narrative structure.

Another common criticism of psychobiographical research is that often in psychobiographical research, no direct contact with the subject can be established, since most of the time the life has already ended (Stroud, 2004). If the person being studied is still alive, it is usually difficult to get in contact with this person because of his/her fame and status as a celebrity. However, other researchers argue that the data on the life are mostly rich and the information about the life can be gained from various resources other than direct contact, even though the most powerful and insightful view might derive from direct contact (Anderson, 1981).

Finally, McLeod (1994) emphasises that psychobiographical research is longitudinal - focusing on a person over a long period of time - as well as cross-cultural in nature. Anderson (1981) also declares psychobiographical research as a form of cross-cultural research, focusing on the life of a person within and across cultural viewpoints. However, this statement has been criticised extensively and other authors have highlighted that in psychobiographical research contemporary theories are generally applied to historical periods (Runyan, 1984). Later, theories were used and applied to the lives of individuals who came from a different culture that the one in which this theory was created (Berry, Portinga, Segall, & Dasen, 1989). Anderson (1981) emphasises that the researcher can develop empathic and cross-cultural understanding of the subject researched, even if the researcher is from a different culture and/or period. The cross-cultural understanding can be based on an extensive literature research and explorations of individuals who are from the same culture as the subject studied. However, as in any other psychological study, it is important to take care when psychological theories and methods are applied and cultural bias needs to be considered (Mayer, 2004, 2008, 2011). Intercultural competences, such as cultural sensitivity of the researcher, tolerance for ambiguity, emotional intelligence and the ability to change perspectives (Mayer, 2011) can be useful to avoid the researcher’s specific cultural bias and contribute to cross-cultural understanding, as well as a constructivist understanding of cultural contexts and their impact on psychobiographical research (see Sect. 9.6.1.2). Based on these assumptions, psychobiographical research is seen as a possibility to expand crosscultural understanding and to contribute to a more in-depth way of understanding individual lives across time, space and culture. Therefore, psychobiographical work can be seen as cross-cultural psychology work and refers to the statement of Schultz (2005d, p. 5) that “in taking one life at a time, psychobiography achieves assimilation;

it integrates the discipline’s split selves.” This means that psychobiographies include many different facets of psychology at a time that they reunify the various approaches within the discipline itself.