PsyResearch
ψ   Psychology Research on the Web   



Couples needed for online psychology research


Help us grow:




Journal of Personality and Social Psychology - Vol 113, Iss 1

Random Abstract
Quick Journal Finder:
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology publishes original papers in all areas of personality and social psychology. It emphasizes empirical reports but may include specialized theoretical, methodological, and review papers.
Copyright 2017 American Psychological Association
  • The experience of secrecy.
    The concept of secrecy calls to mind a dyadic interaction: one person hiding a secret from another during a conversation or social interaction. The current work, however, demonstrates that this aspect of secrecy is rather rare. Taking a broader view of secrecy as the intent to conceal information, which only sometimes necessitates concealment, yields a new psychology of secrecy. Ten studies demonstrate the secrets people have, what it is like to have a secret, and what about secrecy is related to lower well-being. We demonstrate that people catch themselves spontaneously thinking about their secrets—they mind-wander to them—far more frequently than they encounter social situations that require active concealment of those secrets. Moreover, independent of concealment frequency, the frequency of mind-wandering to secrets predicts lower well-being (whereas the converse was not the case). We explore the diversity of secrets people have and the harmful effects of spontaneously thinking about those secrets in both recall tasks and in longitudinal designs, analyzing more than 13,000 secrets across our participant samples, with outcomes for relationship satisfaction, authenticity, well-being, and physical health. These results demonstrate that secrecy can be studied by having people think about their secrets, and have implications for designing interventions to help people cope with secrecy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)
    Citation link to source

  • The state of social and personality science: Rotten to the core, not so bad, getting better, or getting worse?
    The scientific quality of social and personality psychology has been debated at great length in recent years. Despite research on the prevalence of Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) and the replicability of particular findings, the impact of the current discussion on research practices is unknown. The current studies examine whether and how practices have changed, if at all, over the last 10 years. In Study 1, we surveyed 1,166 social and personality psychologists about how the current debate has affected their perceptions of their own and the field’s research practices. In Study 2, we coded the research practices and critical test statistics from social and personality psychology articles published in 2003–2004 and 2013–2014. Together, these studies suggest that (a) perceptions of the current state of the field are more pessimistic than optimistic; (b) the discussion has increased researchers’ intentions to avoid QRPs and adopt proposed best practices, (c) the estimated replicability of research published in 2003–2004 may not be as bad as many feared, and (d) research published in 2013–2014 shows some improvement over research published in 2003–2004, a result that suggests the field is evolving in a positive direction. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)
    Citation link to source

  • Racial bias in judgments of physical size and formidability: From size to threat.
    Black men tend to be stereotyped as threatening and, as a result, may be disproportionately targeted by police even when unarmed. Here, we found evidence that biased perceptions of young Black men’s physical size may play a role in this process. The results of 7 studies showed that people have a bias to perceive young Black men as bigger (taller, heavier, more muscular) and more physically threatening (stronger, more capable of harm) than young White men. Both bottom-up cues of racial prototypicality and top-down information about race supported these misperceptions. Furthermore, this racial bias persisted even among a target sample from whom upper-body strength was controlled (suggesting that racial differences in formidability judgments are a product of bias rather than accuracy). Biased formidability judgments in turn promoted participants’ justifications of hypothetical use of force against Black suspects of crime. Thus, perceivers appear to integrate multiple pieces of information to ultimately conclude that young Black men are more physically threatening than young White men, believing that they must therefore be controlled using more aggressive measures. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)
    Citation link to source

  • Cultural variation in communal versus exchange norms: Implications for social support.
    Whereas an interdependent cultural view of self has been linked to communal norms and to socially supportive behavior, its relationship to social support has been called into question in research suggesting that discomfort in social support is associated with an interdependent cultural view of self (e.g., Taylor et al., 2004). These contrasting claims were addressed in 2 studies conducted among Japanese, Indian, and American adults. Assessing everyday social support, Study 1 showed that Japanese and Americans rely on exchange norms more frequently than Indians among friends, whereas American rely on exchange norms more frequently than Indians and Japanese among siblings. Assessing responses to vignettes, Study 2 demonstrated that Japanese and Americans rely more frequently on exchange norms than Indians, with greatest relational concerns and most negative outlooks on social support observed among Japanese, less among Americans, and least among Indians. Results further indicated that relational concerns mediated the link between exchange norms and negative social support outlooks. Supporting past claims that relational concerns explain cultural variation in discomfort in social support (e.g., Kim, Sherman, & Taylor, 2008), the findings underscore the need to take into account as well the role of exchange norms in explaining such discomfort. The findings also highlight the existence of culturally variable approaches to exchange and call into question claims that discomfort in social support can be explained in terms of the global concept of an interdependent cultural view of self. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)
    Citation link to source

  • Dispositional pathways to trust: Self-esteem and agreeableness interact to predict trust and negative emotional disclosure.
    Expressing our innermost thoughts and feelings is critical to the development of intimacy (Reis & Shaver, 1988), but also risks negative evaluation and rejection. Past research suggests that people with high self-esteem are more expressive and self-disclosing because they trust that others care for them and will not reject them (Gaucher et al., 2012). However, feeling good about oneself may not always be enough; disclosure may also depend on how we feel about other people. Drawing on the principles of risk regulation theory (Murray et al., 2006), we propose that agreeableness—a trait that refers to the positivity of interpersonal motivations and behaviors—is a key determinant of trust in a partner’s caring and responsiveness, and may work in conjunction with self-esteem to predict disclosure. We examined this possibility by exploring how both self-esteem and agreeableness predict a particularly risky and intimate form of self-disclosure, the disclosure of emotional distress. In 6 studies using correlational, partner-report, and experimental methods, we demonstrate that self-esteem and agreeableness interact to predict disclosure: People who are high in both self-esteem and agreeableness show higher emotional disclosure. We also found evidence that trust mediates this effect. People high in self-esteem and agreeableness are most self-revealing, it seems, because they are especially trusting of their partners’ caring. Self-esteem and agreeableness were particularly important for the disclosure of vulnerable emotions (i.e., sadness; Study 5) and disclosures that were especially risky (Study 6). These findings illustrate how dispositional variables can work together to explain behavior in close relationships. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)
    Citation link to source

  • The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power.
    [Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 113(1) of Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (see record 2017-26058-001).In the article, all citations to McCrae and Costa (2008), except for the instance in which it appears in the first paragraph of the introduction, should instead appear as McCrae and Costa (2010). The complete citation should read as follows: McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2010). NEO Inventories professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. The attribution to the BFI-2 items that appears in the Table 6 note should read as follows: BFI-2 items adapted from “Conceptualization, Development, and Initial Validation of the Big Five Inventory–2,” by C. J. Soto and O. P. John, 2015, Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Association for Research in Personality. Copyright 2015 by Oliver P. John and Christopher J. Soto. The complete citation in the References list should appear as follows: Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2015, June). Conceptualization, development, and initial validation of the Big Five Inventory–2. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Association for Research in Personality, St. Louis, MO. Available from http://www.colby.edu/psych/personality-lab/ All versions of this article have been corrected. All versions of this article have been corrected.] Three studies were conducted to develop and validate the Big Five Inventory-2 (BFI-2), a major revision of the Big Five Inventory (BFI). Study 1 specified a hierarchical model of personality structure with 15 facet traits nested within the Big Five domains, and developed a preliminary item pool to measure this structure. Study 2 used conceptual and empirical criteria to construct the BFI-2 domain and facet scales from the preliminary item pool. Study 3 used data from 2 validation samples to evaluate the BFI-2’s measurement properties and substantive relations with self-reported and peer-reported criteria. The results of these studies indicate that the BFI-2 is a reliable and valid personality measure, and an important advance over the original BFI. Specifically, the BFI-2 introduces a robust hierarchical structure, controls for individual differences in acquiescent responding, and provides greater bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power than the original BFI, while still retaining the original measure’s conceptual focus, brevity, and ease of understanding. The BFI-2 therefore offers valuable new opportunities for research examining the structure, assessment, development, and life outcomes of personality traits. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)
    Citation link to source

  • “The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power”: Correction to Soto and John (2016).
    Reports an error in "The Next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and Assessing a Hierarchical Model With 15 Facets to Enhance Bandwidth, Fidelity, and Predictive Power" by Christopher J. Soto and Oliver P. John (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Advanced Online Publication, Apr 7, 2016, np). In the article, all citations to McCrae and Costa (2008), except for the instance in which it appears in the first paragraph of the introduction, should instead appear as McCrae and Costa (2010). The complete citation should read as follows: McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2010). NEO Inventories professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. The attribution to the BFI-2 items that appears in the Table 6 note should read as follows: BFI-2 items adapted from “Conceptualization, Development, and Initial Validation of the Big Five Inventory–2,” by C. J. Soto and O. P. John, 2015, Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Association for Research in Personality. Copyright 2015 by Oliver P. John and Christopher J. Soto. The complete citation in the References list should appear as follows: Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2015, June). Conceptualization, development, and initial validation of the Big Five Inventory–2. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Association for Research in Personality, St. Louis, MO. Available from http://www.colby.edu/psych/personality-lab/ All versions of this article have been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2016-17156-001.) Three studies were conducted to develop and validate the Big Five Inventory-2 (BFI-2), a major revision of the Big Five Inventory (BFI). Study 1 specified a hierarchical model of personality structure with 15 facet traits nested within the Big Five domains, and developed a preliminary item pool to measure this structure. Study 2 used conceptual and empirical criteria to construct the BFI-2 domain and facet scales from the preliminary item pool. Study 3 used data from 2 validation samples to evaluate the BFI-2’s measurement properties and substantive relations with self-reported and peer-reported criteria. The results of these studies indicate that the BFI-2 is a reliable and valid personality measure, and an important advance over the original BFI. Specifically, the BFI-2 introduces a robust hierarchical structure, controls for individual differences in acquiescent responding, and provides greater bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power than the original BFI, while still retaining the original measure’s conceptual focus, brevity, and ease of understanding. The BFI-2 therefore offers valuable new opportunities for research examining the structure, assessment, development, and life outcomes of personality traits. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)
    Citation link to source

  • Parental educational attainment and adult offspring personality: An intergenerational life span approach to the origin of adult personality traits.
    Why do some individuals have more self-control or are more vulnerable to stress than others? Where do these basic personality traits come from? Although a fundamental question in personality, more is known about how traits are related to important life outcomes than their developmental origins. The present research took an intergenerational life span approach to address whether a significant aspect of the childhood environment—parental educational attainment—was associated with offspring personality traits in adulthood. We tested the association between parents’ educational levels and adult offspring personality traits in 7 samples (overall age range 14–95) and meta-analytically combined the results (total N > 60,000). Parents with more years of education had children who were more open, extraverted, and emotionally stable as adults. These associations were small but consistent, of similar modest magnitude to the association between life events and change in personality in adulthood, and were also supported by longitudinal analyses. Contrary to expectations, parental educational attainment was unrelated to offspring Conscientiousness, except for a surprisingly negative association in the younger cohorts. The results were similar in a subsample of participants who were adopted, which suggested that environmental mechanisms were as relevant as shared genetic variants. Participant levels of education were associated with greater conscientiousness, emotional stability, extraversion, and openness and partially mediated the relation between parent education and personality. Child IQ and family income were also partial mediators. The results of this research suggest that parental educational attainment is 1 intergenerational factor associated with offspring personality development in adulthood. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)
    Citation link to source

  • Vocational interests assessed at the end of high school predict life outcomes assessed 10 years later over and above IQ and Big Five personality traits.
    Vocational interests are important aspects of personality that reflect individual differences in motives, goals, and personal strivings. It is therefore plausible that these characteristics have an impact on individuals’ lives not only in terms of vocational outcomes, but also beyond the vocational domain. Yet the effects of vocational interests on various life outcomes have rarely been investigated. Using Holland’s RIASEC taxonomy (Holland, 1997), which groups vocational interests into 6 broad domains, the present study examined whether vocational interests are significant predictors of life outcomes that show incremental validity over and above the Big Five personality traits. For this purpose, a cohort of German high school students (N = 3,023) was tracked over a period of 10 years after graduating from school. Linear and logistic regression analyses were used to examine the predictive validity of RIASEC interests and Big Five personality traits. Nine outcomes from the domains of work, relationships, and health were investigated. The results indicate that vocational interests are important predictors of life outcomes that show incremental validity over the Big Five personality traits. Vocational interests were significant predictors of 7 of the 9 investigated outcomes: full-time employment, gross income, unemployment, being married, having children, never having had a relationship, and perceived health status. For work and relationship outcomes, vocational interests were even stronger predictors than the Big Five personality traits. For health-related outcomes, the results favored the personality traits. Effects were similar across gender for all outcomes—except 2 relationship outcomes. Possible explanations for these effects are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)
    Citation link to source



Back to top


Back to top