Journal of personality and social psychology最新文献

Humans tell stories to share information, evoke emotions, and change opinions. An inherent dimension of these stories is the narrative perspective from which they are told: Sometimes stories are told from a person's first-person narrative perspective (e.g., using I/me pronouns), whereas other times, they are told about the person using a third-person narrative perspective (e.g., using he/him, she/her, etc., pronouns). The current work tests the hypothesis that the first-person (vs. third-person) narrative perspective causes people to construe information more concretely (vs. abstractly), with downstream effects on how readers interpret and are influenced by a text. Experiments 1a/1b support this claim by showing that participants construe others' actions more concretely (vs. abstractly) when those actions are written from the first-person (vs. third-person) narrative perspective. Experiments 2a/2b build on this finding to show that people prefer concrete (vs. abstract) summary descriptions of short narrative stories that are written from the first-person (vs. third-person) narrative perspective. Experiment 3 tests the implications of this effect for persuasion, showing people were more motivated to donate blood when first-person (vs. third-person) donation testimonials were paired with concrete (vs. abstract) arguments for donating. Finally, Experiment 4 shows that narrative perspective influences identification with a character depending on the relatability of the character's experience. First-person (vs. third-person) narratives increase identification with characters, unless their experiences are too difficult to relate to. These findings provide insight into how narrative perspective influences people's understanding of a written text, as well as its subsequent influence on attitudes and behaviors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Typical nomothetic, dimensional conceptualizations of personality traits have demonstrated that traits show robust patterns of change across the lifespan. Yet, questions linger about both the mechanisms underlying trait change and the extent to which we can understand any individual using only dimensional approaches. Alternatively, a person-specific conceptualization of personality that emphasizes processes specific to one person may offer more insight into changes at the expense of generalizability. We argue that taking an idiographic, person-specific dynamic network approach to understanding a person provides an opportunity to bridge the nomothetic-idiographic gap and understand processes underlying trait change that may point to how personality changes across the lifespan. In this study, we examined whether the properties of idiographic personality networks were related to between-person personality trait changes in a sample of college students (N = 418). We used dynamic exploratory graph analysis to construct N = 1 personality networks and then included network parameters in multilevel growth models over a 2-year period using self- and informant-report data. We found that network parameters were largely unrelated to between-person change for self-reports but were related to some informant-reports. Discussion revolves around continuing to bridge the two approaches together to create a holistic picture of personality change. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Volitional personality change interventions have been shown to help people change their current personality toward their ideal personality. Here, we address three limitations of this literature. First, we contrast the dominant theoretical perspective of self-improvement with self-acceptance as pathways to reduce the discrepancy between current and ideal personality. Second, we test how well-being aspects change as a by-product of targeting personality. Third, we use a waitlist control group to account for expectancy and demand effects. Across three studies (combined N = 2,094; 1,044 women, 1,050 men; M_age = 30.74, SD_age = 9.57, range_age = 18-75), we implemented randomized online interventions of self-improvement or self-acceptance over a 3-month period, with another follow-up 6 months after baseline and a waitlist control group added in Study 2. Across Studies 1 and 2, participants in both intervention groups reduced discrepancies between current and ideal personality and increased in well-being. In both intervention groups, current personality increased, whereas ideal personality remained stable. Critically, however, control group participants changed similarly, with no significant differences in change compared to participants who received the interventions. Study 3 compared different control group specifications and highlighted that the intervention recruitment framing might have induced selection effects and expectancy and demand effects leading to positive changes in neuroticism, conscientiousness, and extraversion as well as life satisfaction and self-esteem. Thus, we demonstrate both shortcomings of previous intervention designs and imprecisions in theoretical frameworks of personality change mechanisms. We discuss future directions including multimethod studies, measurement advances, and microrandomization of intervention components. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Ostracism-being ignored and excluded-is part of many individuals' daily lives. Yet, ostracism is often studied in laboratory settings and rarely in natural settings. Here, we report one of the first investigations into ostracism in everyday life by documenting how often and where ostracism occurs; who the sources of ostracism are; and how ostracism affects targets' feelings and behaviors. Two experience sampling studies using event-contingent (N = 323, k = 1,107 ostracism experiences in 14 days) and time-signaling sampling approaches (N = 272, k = 7,943 assessments including 767 ostracism experiences in 7 days) show that ostracism is an aversive experience that takes place in a range of contexts and relationships, as often as two to three times per week on average. Reconciling previously mixed findings regarding ostracism's effects on behavior and extending existing theory, we propose a novel framework of behavioral reactions based on need-threat levels: When psychological needs are severely threatened, individuals react to everyday ostracism with avoidance (i.e., withdrawal) and antisocial inclinations (i.e., they exhibit significantly stronger antisocial intentions, although they do not engage in antisocial behavior more frequently). Conversely, when psychological needs are threatened to a lesser extent, individuals are more likely to adopt approach behaviors (i.e., prosocial behavior, talking to others, or connecting with them on social media). Our findings considerably extend present theorizing in ostracism research as they allow to understand when and how individuals experience everyday ostracism and how behavioral reactions after ostracism form in real life. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Sacrificial moral dilemmas require individuals to choose between allowing harm to several people or preventing this by actively causing harm to a smaller number of people. These dilemmas have been foundational in studying how people resolve conflicts between competing moral principles, with responses traditionally interpreted as reflecting either "utilitarian" concern for the greater good or "deontological" refusal to enact harm. Existing research relies almost exclusively on hypothetical scenarios. We confronted 794 participants across two studies with real-life consequential dilemmas involving minor but genuine physical harm. Participants decided whether to allow two confederates to receive painful electroshocks or shock a third confederate and provided motivations for their decisions. Study 1 manipulated physical proximity to potential targets, while Study 2 examined how the gender composition of potential targets influenced decisions. Moreover, each participant faced this choice twice, allowing us to examine how prior outcomes influence subsequent moral decisions. Results show that responses to traditional hypothetical dilemmas moderately predict real-life behavior. Physical proximity and target gender had no significant effects on actual choices. When confronting the dilemma a second time, approximately one third of participants switched their decision, primarily to distribute harm equitably across potential targets. Analysis of participants' motivations reveals a diverse spectrum of moral considerations beyond utilitarian-deontological frameworks, including fairness concerns, responsibility avoidance, and beliefs about shared versus individual suffering. Our findings invite scholars to expand current theoretical models to better capture the nuanced ways people approach sacrificial trade-offs in consequential, real-world situations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

People are systematically unaware of the mishaps, problems, and failures around them, a phenomenon we dub the failure gap. People underestimate tens of thousands, and in some cases, millions of failures at the individual, national, and international level across 30+ life domains (Study 1). For every three species that go extinct, the public knows of one; for every five weapons undetected by airport security, people think one sneaks by. Why are people unaware of the problems around them? Failure is underreported relative to success (Studies 2-5). The failure gap had policy implications for key decision makers. Closing the failure gap reduced support for harsh punishment (e.g., school suspensions) among educators, lowered support for mass incarceration among voters, led managers to extend paid parental leave to new mothers, and shrank social stigma in the workplace (Studies 6 and 7). Taken together, the failure gap is common, crippling, and encouragingly correctable. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).