Abstract

Theories of individual differences are foundational to psychological and brain sciences, yet they are traditionally developed and tested using superficial summaries of data (e.g., mean response times) that are disconnected from our otherwise rich conceptual theories of behavior. To resolve this theory-description gap, we review the generative modeling approach, which involves formally specifying how behavior is generated within individuals, and in turn how generative mechanisms vary across individuals. Generative modeling shifts our focus away from estimating descriptive statistical “effects” toward estimating psychologically interpretable parameters, while simultaneously enhancing the reliability and validity of our measures. We demonstrate the utility of generative modeling in the context of the “reliability paradox”, a phenomenon wherein replicable group effects (e.g., Stroop effect) fail to capture individual differences (e.g., low test- retest reliability). Simulations and empirical data from the Implicit Association Test, Stroop, Flanker, Posner, and Delay Discounting tasks show that generative models yield (1) more theoretically informative parameters, and (2) higher test-retest reliability estimates relative to traditional approaches, illustrating their potential for enhancing theory development.