Pub Date : 2026-02-10DOI: 10.1177/10888683261417476
Eranda Jayawickreme, Franki Y H Kung, Ligia Carolina Oliveira-Silva, Sarah C E Stanton, Valerie Jones Taylor, Nic M Weststrate
{"title":"Continuity and Change: The Next Chapter at PSPR.","authors":"Eranda Jayawickreme, Franki Y H Kung, Ligia Carolina Oliveira-Silva, Sarah C E Stanton, Valerie Jones Taylor, Nic M Weststrate","doi":"10.1177/10888683261417476","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683261417476","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"10888683261417476"},"PeriodicalIF":10.4,"publicationDate":"2026-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146150947","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-01-23DOI: 10.1177/10888683251391836
Diana E Peragine,Emily A Impett,Doug P VanderLaan
Academic AbstractGender differences in sexuality are often attributed to evolved biological differences organized before adolescence or experiential ones learned afterward-neglecting learning that endures because it is evolutionarily expected, and we are biologically sensitized to it. Here, we present the Biodevelopmental Learning Opportunities and Outcomes Model (BLOOM) of gender differences in sexuality, arguing women's lower interest in sex originates not from unequal capacities to want/desire it, but unequal opportunities to like/enjoy sex when biospsychosocially primed to learn from it. We synthesize evidence indicating sex is least equal in adolescence, offering the greatest costs and fewest rewards to women/girls who debut with men/boys (WDM). Concomitantly, it is most teachable in adolescence, when a window of opportunity for sexual incentive learning may open, particularly among individuals with heightened sexual plasticity/learning aptitude (i.e., women/girls). Implications for distinguishing gender differences in sexuality from experience-contingent similarities, and realizing equal sexual rights, education, and health are discussed.Public AbstractGender differences in sexual enjoyment are among the largest in psychology and have remained so over decades despite other advances in gender equality. The gender gap in sexual pleasure, for example, has gained widespread attention and is increasingly discussed as an explanation for gender differences in sexuality. Here, we spotlight the largest, but least discussed, gender gap in sexual enjoyment: the developmental gap. We review evidence that adolescence is not simply a vulnerable period for sexual health, but a window of opportunity for learning to have healthy, enjoyable, and desirable sex-and one wherein equal opportunity is lacking. We propose women get the least equitable sex during this window, when they are primed to learn from it, and this learning informs sexual interest thereafter, generating acquired differences that are often mistaken for inborn ones. We close with recommendations for ensuring equal opportunities for healthy sex and sexual health across genders.
{"title":"Least Equal When Most Teachable: The Biodevelopmental Learning Opportunities and Outcomes Model of Gender Differences in Sexuality.","authors":"Diana E Peragine,Emily A Impett,Doug P VanderLaan","doi":"10.1177/10888683251391836","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683251391836","url":null,"abstract":"Academic AbstractGender differences in sexuality are often attributed to evolved biological differences organized before adolescence or experiential ones learned afterward-neglecting learning that endures because it is evolutionarily expected, and we are biologically sensitized to it. Here, we present the Biodevelopmental Learning Opportunities and Outcomes Model (BLOOM) of gender differences in sexuality, arguing women's lower interest in sex originates not from unequal capacities to want/desire it, but unequal opportunities to like/enjoy sex when biospsychosocially primed to learn from it. We synthesize evidence indicating sex is least equal in adolescence, offering the greatest costs and fewest rewards to women/girls who debut with men/boys (WDM). Concomitantly, it is most teachable in adolescence, when a window of opportunity for sexual incentive learning may open, particularly among individuals with heightened sexual plasticity/learning aptitude (i.e., women/girls). Implications for distinguishing gender differences in sexuality from experience-contingent similarities, and realizing equal sexual rights, education, and health are discussed.Public AbstractGender differences in sexual enjoyment are among the largest in psychology and have remained so over decades despite other advances in gender equality. The gender gap in sexual pleasure, for example, has gained widespread attention and is increasingly discussed as an explanation for gender differences in sexuality. Here, we spotlight the largest, but least discussed, gender gap in sexual enjoyment: the developmental gap. We review evidence that adolescence is not simply a vulnerable period for sexual health, but a window of opportunity for learning to have healthy, enjoyable, and desirable sex-and one wherein equal opportunity is lacking. We propose women get the least equitable sex during this window, when they are primed to learn from it, and this learning informs sexual interest thereafter, generating acquired differences that are often mistaken for inborn ones. We close with recommendations for ensuring equal opportunities for healthy sex and sexual health across genders.","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":"6 1","pages":"10888683251391836"},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2026-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146021447","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-01-03DOI: 10.1177/10888683251407825
Raihan Alam, Michael Gill
Academic AbstractPartisan animosity is on the rise in many nations around the globe. Given its significant implications, it is imperative to establish a clear conceptualization of partisan animosity that can aid efforts to reduce it. To address this need, we present a novel framework that conceptualizes partisan animosity as an attitude of blame directed toward political outgroups. Drawing from the literature on moral psychology, we construct a comprehensive model of the psychology of blame. Then, we use that model as an interpretive lens to understand existing interventions that have reduced partisan animosity. Finally, we suggest a variety of possible future interventions inspired by our framework. By adopting this blame-based perspective, our article sheds light on the underlying mechanisms of partisan animosity, provides a unifying framework for understanding existing work, and stimulates novel ideas for future research.Public AbstractPartisan animosity, hostility directed toward political outparties, has been growing in many areas of the world, with significant negative impacts on society and politics. This article offers a new perspective on this growing animosity, proposing that partisan animosity reflects an attitude of blame that partisans direct toward each other. Drawing from insights in moral psychology, we present a model of blame, describing how it operates, and use the model to understand both the nature of partisan animosity and potential pathways for intervention. Our model contributes to understanding partisan animosity with the ultimate goal of informing interventions to reduce it.
{"title":"Partisan Animosity as Blame: A Unifying and Generative Framework for Understanding and Transforming Affective Polarization in the Political Sphere.","authors":"Raihan Alam, Michael Gill","doi":"10.1177/10888683251407825","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683251407825","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Academic AbstractPartisan animosity is on the rise in many nations around the globe. Given its significant implications, it is imperative to establish a clear conceptualization of partisan animosity that can aid efforts to reduce it. To address this need, we present a novel framework that conceptualizes partisan animosity as an attitude of blame directed toward political outgroups. Drawing from the literature on moral psychology, we construct a comprehensive model of the psychology of blame. Then, we use that model as an interpretive lens to understand existing interventions that have reduced partisan animosity. Finally, we suggest a variety of possible future interventions inspired by our framework. By adopting this blame-based perspective, our article sheds light on the underlying mechanisms of partisan animosity, provides a unifying framework for understanding existing work, and stimulates novel ideas for future research.Public AbstractPartisan animosity, hostility directed toward political outparties, has been growing in many areas of the world, with significant negative impacts on society and politics. This article offers a new perspective on this growing animosity, proposing that partisan animosity reflects an attitude of blame that partisans direct toward each other. Drawing from insights in moral psychology, we present a model of blame, describing how it operates, and use the model to understand both the nature of partisan animosity and potential pathways for intervention. Our model contributes to understanding partisan animosity with the ultimate goal of informing interventions to reduce it.</p>","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"10888683251407825"},"PeriodicalIF":10.4,"publicationDate":"2026-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145892805","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-29DOI: 10.1177/10888683251403209
William B. Meese
Academic Abstract This article introduces the Modern Constructivist Model of Motivated Self-Protection ( MCM-MSP ), an integrative and novel theoretical account of two distinguishable forms of self-protection motivation that are underlain by diverging patterns in psychophysiological processes: (1) defensive arousal , which opposes self-threats and their implied conceptual representations to prevent self-concept instability and related consequences and (2) intrapsychic conflict , which compels restoration of self-concept stability and self-evaluative equanimity after one accepts the personal implications of a self-threat. The MCM-MSP locates each motivational orientation within a process model that describes when, how, and to what effect it uniquely compels one to strategically prevent self-concept instability or resolve it. This new explanation of self-protection motivation provides generative avenues for future research, including new ways to synthesize research examining defensive responses, new experimental approaches to testing self-protection strategies’ total causal effect, and a stronger description of self-protection motivation’s psychological construction using mixed-methods research and large language models. Public Abstract This article introduces the Modern Constructivist Model of Motivated Self-Protection ( MCM-MSP ), a new approach to examining the emotional and motivational components involved in how people respond to events and information that undermine how they think and feel about themselves. When these self-threatening events occur, people use different strategies to navigate the threat: some strategies might prevent the threat from changing how they think and feel about themselves; other strategies might help make things better if they ultimately accept the threat. Psychologists have long theorized that these strategies are motivated, suggesting that some force from within compels people to enact defensive or ameliorative strategies. However, there is very little consensus or clarity regarding the nature of this motivational force. What exactly is self-protection motivation ? The MCM-MSP answers this question by proposing two distinct motivational orientations that underlie self-protection motivation and then locating them within a framework that describes when, how, and to what effect each mechanism compels threatened people.
{"title":"Self-Protection Motivation and Its Psychological Construction: A Process Model Distinguishing Two Unique Motivational Orientations","authors":"William B. Meese","doi":"10.1177/10888683251403209","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683251403209","url":null,"abstract":"Academic Abstract This article introduces the <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">Modern Constructivist Model of Motivated Self-Protection</jats:italic> ( <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">MCM-MSP</jats:italic> ), an integrative and novel theoretical account of two distinguishable forms of self-protection motivation that are underlain by diverging patterns in psychophysiological processes: (1) <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">defensive arousal</jats:italic> , which opposes self-threats and their implied conceptual representations to prevent self-concept instability and related consequences and (2) <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">intrapsychic conflict</jats:italic> , which compels restoration of self-concept stability and self-evaluative equanimity after one accepts the personal implications of a self-threat. The MCM-MSP locates each motivational orientation within a process model that describes when, how, and to what effect it uniquely compels one to strategically prevent self-concept instability or resolve it. This new explanation of self-protection motivation provides generative avenues for future research, including new ways to synthesize research examining defensive responses, new experimental approaches to testing self-protection strategies’ total causal effect, and a stronger description of self-protection motivation’s psychological construction using mixed-methods research and large language models. Public Abstract This article introduces the <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">Modern Constructivist Model of Motivated Self-Protection</jats:italic> ( <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">MCM-MSP</jats:italic> ), a new approach to examining the emotional and motivational components involved in how people respond to events and information that undermine how they think and feel about themselves. When these self-threatening events occur, people use different strategies to navigate the threat: some strategies might prevent the threat from changing how they think and feel about themselves; other strategies might help make things better if they ultimately accept the threat. Psychologists have long theorized that these strategies are motivated, suggesting that some force from within compels people to enact defensive or ameliorative strategies. However, there is very little consensus or clarity regarding the nature of this motivational force. What exactly is <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">self-protection motivation</jats:italic> ? The MCM-MSP answers this question by proposing two distinct motivational orientations that underlie self-protection motivation and then locating them within a framework that describes when, how, and to what effect each mechanism compels threatened people.","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2025-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145847336","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-27DOI: 10.1177/10888683251392766
Minh Duc Pham, Kimberly E. Chaney, Alexandra Garr-Schultz
Research on intraminority solidarity has primarily relied on the stigma-based solidarity framework, which uses commonalities based on discrimination to foster systemically marginalized people’s activism for one another. Shifting from a deficit-based to a critical strength-based approach, we propose strength-based solidarity, where marginalized people recognize their shared, identity-conscious (i.e., conscious of sociohistorical, cultural, and political contexts) strengths and thus work to optimize each other’s lived experiences. We argue that strength-based solidarity can cultivate holistic and sustained intraminority solidarity. Integrating the literature on intraminority relations with collective action and strength-based research, we present holistic perception, efficacy, positive emotions, reduced competitive victimhood and less burnout, as mechanisms by which strength-based solidarity can facilitate intraminority solidarity. We discuss the proposed framework’s intersections with stigma-based solidarity and intersectionality. Research on strength-based solidarity can provide education, political organizing, and clinical applications to cultivate positive intraminority relations. Public Abstract What makes people from different marginalized communities show up and advocate for each other? Psychologists and lay audiences alike often focus on experiencing similar discrimination as a reason marginalized groups may come together, but are marginalized people solely bonded through discrimination? We introduce a new way to look at solidarity between different marginalized groups: strength-based solidarity. We suggest that people from different marginalized groups share similar strengths in their day-to-day lives, such as resilience, cultural diversity, and community strength. Recognizing such common strengths has the potential to increase intraminority solidarity that can nurture marginalized people’s strengths (such as celebrating talents and cultivating joys) and can last longer. Given the increasingly repressive U.S. climate, relying on shared strengths is especially instrumental to bring people together in all realms of society.
{"title":"Strength-Based Solidarity: Shared Strengths as a Novel Pathway Toward Holistic and Sustained Intraminority Solidarity","authors":"Minh Duc Pham, Kimberly E. Chaney, Alexandra Garr-Schultz","doi":"10.1177/10888683251392766","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683251392766","url":null,"abstract":"Research on intraminority solidarity has primarily relied on the stigma-based solidarity framework, which uses commonalities based on discrimination to foster systemically marginalized people’s activism for one another. Shifting from a deficit-based to a critical strength-based approach, we propose strength-based solidarity, where marginalized people recognize their shared, identity-conscious (i.e., conscious of sociohistorical, cultural, and political contexts) strengths and thus work to optimize each other’s lived experiences. We argue that strength-based solidarity can cultivate holistic and sustained intraminority solidarity. Integrating the literature on intraminority relations with collective action and strength-based research, we present holistic perception, efficacy, positive emotions, reduced competitive victimhood and less burnout, as mechanisms by which strength-based solidarity can facilitate intraminority solidarity. We discuss the proposed framework’s intersections with stigma-based solidarity and intersectionality. Research on strength-based solidarity can provide education, political organizing, and clinical applications to cultivate positive intraminority relations. Public Abstract What makes people from different marginalized communities show up and advocate for each other? Psychologists and lay audiences alike often focus on experiencing similar discrimination as a reason marginalized groups may come together, but are marginalized people solely bonded through discrimination? We introduce a new way to look at solidarity between different marginalized groups: strength-based solidarity. We suggest that people from different marginalized groups share similar strengths in their day-to-day lives, such as resilience, cultural diversity, and community strength. Recognizing such common strengths has the potential to increase intraminority solidarity that can nurture marginalized people’s strengths (such as celebrating talents and cultivating joys) and can last longer. Given the increasingly repressive U.S. climate, relying on shared strengths is especially instrumental to bring people together in all realms of society.","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":"2653 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2025-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145836177","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-18DOI: 10.1177/10888683251403213
Erin Freiburger,Erika V Hall,Christopher D Petsko
Academic AbstractBlack-threat stereotyping, or the tendency to disproportionately associate Black individuals with threat-related concepts, is an artifact of American psychology. Nonetheless, most of what psychologists know about this topic concerns how Black-threat stereotypes are applied to young, straight Black men. In the present analysis, we review existing research on intersectional Black-threat stereotyping: broadly, how Black-threat stereotyping depends on the multiple, intersecting social categories to which targets belong. Although the existing literature is at times contradictory, we argue that it can be well-explained by an Integrative Framework of Intersectional Stereotyping that merges the core assumptions of two recent theories of intersectional stereotyping: the lens model and MOSAIC. The central contribution of the proposed framework is that intersectional stereotypes may at times be retrieved from memory and at other times be dynamically generated. We conclude with a roadmap for future research in this consequential domain.Public AbstractIn the United States, Black Americans are killed by police at over twice the rate of White Americans. There are many reasons for this racial disparity, not the least of which is that Black Americans are often stereotyped as threatening. In the present paper, we review what scientists currently know about these inaccurate perceptions, and we discuss the question of whether these perceptions depend on the multiple social groups to which Black Americans belong (for example, Black Americans' age, gender, and sexual orientation groups). We argue that although research on this topic is messy, it can be "cleaned up" with the help of what we call an Integrative Framework of Intersectional Stereotyping. This framework merges insights from two recent theories of intersectional stereotyping: the lens model and MOSAIC.
{"title":"An Integrative Framework of Intersectional Stereotyping: Merging the Lens Model and MOSAIC to Explain Variations in Black-Threat Stereotyping.","authors":"Erin Freiburger,Erika V Hall,Christopher D Petsko","doi":"10.1177/10888683251403213","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683251403213","url":null,"abstract":"Academic AbstractBlack-threat stereotyping, or the tendency to disproportionately associate Black individuals with threat-related concepts, is an artifact of American psychology. Nonetheless, most of what psychologists know about this topic concerns how Black-threat stereotypes are applied to young, straight Black men. In the present analysis, we review existing research on intersectional Black-threat stereotyping: broadly, how Black-threat stereotyping depends on the multiple, intersecting social categories to which targets belong. Although the existing literature is at times contradictory, we argue that it can be well-explained by an Integrative Framework of Intersectional Stereotyping that merges the core assumptions of two recent theories of intersectional stereotyping: the lens model and MOSAIC. The central contribution of the proposed framework is that intersectional stereotypes may at times be retrieved from memory and at other times be dynamically generated. We conclude with a roadmap for future research in this consequential domain.Public AbstractIn the United States, Black Americans are killed by police at over twice the rate of White Americans. There are many reasons for this racial disparity, not the least of which is that Black Americans are often stereotyped as threatening. In the present paper, we review what scientists currently know about these inaccurate perceptions, and we discuss the question of whether these perceptions depend on the multiple social groups to which Black Americans belong (for example, Black Americans' age, gender, and sexual orientation groups). We argue that although research on this topic is messy, it can be \"cleaned up\" with the help of what we call an Integrative Framework of Intersectional Stereotyping. This framework merges insights from two recent theories of intersectional stereotyping: the lens model and MOSAIC.","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":"82 1","pages":"10888683251403213"},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2025-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145777421","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-07DOI: 10.1177/10888683251377227
Ted Schwaba, Amber Gayle Thalmayer
Openness/intellect often stands apart from the other Big Few personality traits. Here, we interrogate some of the many qualities that make openness/intellect unique. First, we describe this trait’s unique history, highlighting unresolved controversies critical to its modern interpretation. Second, we identify three major research questions where openness/intellect is unique among the Big Few: trait associations with outcomes are often moderated, it is often irrelevant to mental health, and it is the rarest target of volitional change; we develop theories to confirm and explain these phenomena. Third, we synthesize etic (imported) and emic (local) cross-cultural evidence to argue that openness/intellect is the least cross-culturally portable Big Few trait. We hypothesize that variation in individualism, looseness, and complexity modify its relevance and coherence around a potentially universal core. Throughout, we argue that understanding these unique qualities is required to cohesively interpret past openness/intellect findings and expand future research on this trait. Public Abstract Most researchers study personality using five or six broad traits. One of these traits is called openness/intellect, which describes people who are imaginative, knowledgeable, nontraditional, creative, and often unusual. Here, we explore how the trait itself is often unique compared to other broad personality traits. For example, most people want to change their personality, but they rarely want to change in openness/intellect. And, although openness/intellect is important for people living in North America and Europe, in other cultures it seems less relevant. In some cultures, its specific components don’t go together: nontraditional people aren’t more imaginative. In some languages, words like “creative” don’t exist. Even so, some indicators of openness/intellect, like wisdom and experiencing goosebumps from music, are found among humans everywhere. We develop theories to explain these unique qualities of openness/intellect; testing them will allow us to further understand how, why, and among whom individual differences in this trait are important.
{"title":"Openness/Intellect: A Unique Trait Requires Unique Considerations","authors":"Ted Schwaba, Amber Gayle Thalmayer","doi":"10.1177/10888683251377227","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683251377227","url":null,"abstract":"Openness/intellect often stands apart from the other Big Few personality traits. Here, we interrogate some of the many qualities that make openness/intellect unique. First, we describe this trait’s unique history, highlighting unresolved controversies critical to its modern interpretation. Second, we identify three major research questions where openness/intellect is unique among the Big Few: trait associations with outcomes are often moderated, it is often irrelevant to mental health, and it is the rarest target of volitional change; we develop theories to confirm and explain these phenomena. Third, we synthesize etic (imported) and emic (local) cross-cultural evidence to argue that openness/intellect is the least cross-culturally portable Big Few trait. We hypothesize that variation in individualism, looseness, and complexity modify its relevance and coherence around a potentially universal core. Throughout, we argue that understanding these unique qualities is required to cohesively interpret past openness/intellect findings and expand future research on this trait. Public Abstract Most researchers study personality using five or six broad traits. One of these traits is called openness/intellect, which describes people who are imaginative, knowledgeable, nontraditional, creative, and often unusual. Here, we explore how the trait itself is often unique compared to other broad personality traits. For example, most people want to change their personality, but they rarely want to change in openness/intellect. And, although openness/intellect is important for people living in North America and Europe, in other cultures it seems less relevant. In some cultures, its specific components don’t go together: nontraditional people aren’t more imaginative. In some languages, words like “creative” don’t exist. Even so, some indicators of openness/intellect, like wisdom and experiencing goosebumps from music, are found among humans everywhere. We develop theories to explain these unique qualities of openness/intellect; testing them will allow us to further understand how, why, and among whom individual differences in this trait are important.","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":"74 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2025-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145455558","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-03DOI: 10.1177/10888683251384840
Natalie Wong, Xianmin Gong
Academic Abstract People want to pursue happiness but often fail, a phenomenon known as the paradox of pursuing happiness. The mechanisms underlying this paradox remain elusive. Age differences in happiness—specifically that older adults appear more successful in pursuing happiness (the emotion paradox of aging)—provide valuable insights into effective happiness pursuit. Drawing on this literature, we propose an intergoal compatibility account to interpret both paradoxes through the lens of intergoal interactions, an intuitively critical yet underexplored factor in existing interpretations. This account asserts that greater compatibility (fewer conflicts and greater facilitation) between happiness pursuit and other important personal goals enhances the effectiveness of happiness pursuit, and such compatibility can be enhanced through contextual influences (e.g., age-graded developmental tasks) and strategic self-regulation (e.g., goal adjustments). This account generates testable predictions and practical implications for enhancing happiness pursuit across the lifespan. Public Abstract Why do people often struggle to achieve happiness? And why are older adults happier than younger adults, even though they face more losses in life? While these questions have drawn extensive attention, they remain puzzling. A crucial yet insufficiently explored factor in successful happiness pursuit is intergoal compatibility —the extent to which the pursuit of happiness aligns or conflicts with other important personal goals. For younger adults, the demands of age-related developmental tasks (e.g., educational and career aspirations) often create conflicts with the pursuit of happiness, diminishing its effectiveness. Conversely, in older adults, happiness becomes more prioritized and compatible with other important personal goals, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of pursuing happiness. A lesson we can learn from older adults is to pursue happiness in ways compatible with other important personal goals.
{"title":"Learning From Older Adults: An Intergoal Compatibility Account for Successful Happiness Pursuit","authors":"Natalie Wong, Xianmin Gong","doi":"10.1177/10888683251384840","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683251384840","url":null,"abstract":"Academic Abstract People want to pursue happiness but often fail, a phenomenon known as the paradox of pursuing happiness. The mechanisms underlying this paradox remain elusive. Age differences in happiness—specifically that older adults appear more successful in pursuing happiness (the emotion paradox of aging)—provide valuable insights into effective happiness pursuit. Drawing on this literature, we propose an <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">intergoal compatibility account</jats:italic> to interpret both paradoxes through the lens of intergoal interactions, an intuitively critical yet underexplored factor in existing interpretations. This account asserts that greater compatibility (fewer conflicts and greater facilitation) between happiness pursuit and other important personal goals enhances the effectiveness of happiness pursuit, and such compatibility can be enhanced through contextual influences (e.g., age-graded developmental tasks) and strategic self-regulation (e.g., goal adjustments). This account generates testable predictions and practical implications for enhancing happiness pursuit across the lifespan. Public Abstract Why do people often struggle to achieve happiness? And why are older adults happier than younger adults, even though they face more losses in life? While these questions have drawn extensive attention, they remain puzzling. A crucial yet insufficiently explored factor in successful happiness pursuit is <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">intergoal compatibility</jats:italic> —the extent to which the pursuit of happiness aligns or conflicts with other important personal goals. For younger adults, the demands of age-related developmental tasks (e.g., educational and career aspirations) often create conflicts with the pursuit of happiness, diminishing its effectiveness. Conversely, in older adults, happiness becomes more prioritized and compatible with other important personal goals, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of pursuing happiness. A lesson we can learn from older adults is to pursue happiness in ways compatible with other important personal goals.","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2025-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145427790","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-09-29DOI: 10.1177/10888683251364487
Girishwar Misra,Purnima Singh,Arvind Kumar Mishra
Academic AbstractThis paper explores the complex processes of marginalization and demarginalization in India with an emphasis on the experiences of Dalits (Hindi word for oppressed). The caste system in India is characterized by "graded inequality," keeping lower-caste people from achieving economic parity and denying them access to opportunities and resources. Even though the Indian Constitution protects against caste discrimination, it is common and has a wide-ranging influence on people's lives, including their livelihoods, sense of self, education, and health. The paper argues for culturally appropriate frameworks that represent the distinct experiences of oppressed groups in India and criticizes the sluggish advancements in social psychology concerning caste. Highlighting the complex nature of marginalization and the ways in which caste, gender, and socioeconomic issues interact, the paper presents a holistic framework for understanding caste-based marginalization and demarginalization. Drawing insights from the contributions of two iconic social thinkers in India, Gandhi and Ambedkar, the proposed framework combines top-down institutional changes with bottom-up community empowerment efforts to achieve demarginalization. To tackle the cultural and psychological aspects of marginalization, it is essential to incorporate indigenous knowledge and decolonial viewpoints. The paper calls for a comprehensive approach that empowers disadvantaged groups via education, lobbying, and cultural preservation while acknowledging the historical and structural origins of caste-based exclusion. An ongoing effort at demarginalization is critical for creating a more equal society and eliminating long-standing imbalances.Public AbstractThis paper delves into the intricate dynamics of marginalization and demarginalization in the context of India's caste system, particularly focusing on the experiences of Dalits (Hindi word for oppressed). Despite constitutional protections, caste-based discrimination remains pervasive, affecting various aspects of life, including livelihoods, identity, education, and health. The paper presents a comprehensive model to understanding marginalization, highlighting its multifaceted nature and the interplay of caste, gender, and socioeconomic factors. Based on the ideas of two influential personalities in India, Gandhi and Ambedkar, the paper proposes a model that advances a dual strategy for demarginalization, combining top-down institutional reforms with grassroots community empowerment initiatives. It is argued that an integration of indigenous knowledge and decolonial perspectives is crucial for addressing the psychological and cultural dimensions of marginalization. The paper underscores that demarginalization is not a linear process but requires a transformative approach that fosters dignity, equality, and justice. By recognizing the historical and structural roots of caste-based exclusion, the paper advocates for a holistic app
{"title":"Personal and Social Dynamics of Marginalization and Demarginalization.","authors":"Girishwar Misra,Purnima Singh,Arvind Kumar Mishra","doi":"10.1177/10888683251364487","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683251364487","url":null,"abstract":"Academic AbstractThis paper explores the complex processes of marginalization and demarginalization in India with an emphasis on the experiences of Dalits (Hindi word for oppressed). The caste system in India is characterized by \"graded inequality,\" keeping lower-caste people from achieving economic parity and denying them access to opportunities and resources. Even though the Indian Constitution protects against caste discrimination, it is common and has a wide-ranging influence on people's lives, including their livelihoods, sense of self, education, and health. The paper argues for culturally appropriate frameworks that represent the distinct experiences of oppressed groups in India and criticizes the sluggish advancements in social psychology concerning caste. Highlighting the complex nature of marginalization and the ways in which caste, gender, and socioeconomic issues interact, the paper presents a holistic framework for understanding caste-based marginalization and demarginalization. Drawing insights from the contributions of two iconic social thinkers in India, Gandhi and Ambedkar, the proposed framework combines top-down institutional changes with bottom-up community empowerment efforts to achieve demarginalization. To tackle the cultural and psychological aspects of marginalization, it is essential to incorporate indigenous knowledge and decolonial viewpoints. The paper calls for a comprehensive approach that empowers disadvantaged groups via education, lobbying, and cultural preservation while acknowledging the historical and structural origins of caste-based exclusion. An ongoing effort at demarginalization is critical for creating a more equal society and eliminating long-standing imbalances.Public AbstractThis paper delves into the intricate dynamics of marginalization and demarginalization in the context of India's caste system, particularly focusing on the experiences of Dalits (Hindi word for oppressed). Despite constitutional protections, caste-based discrimination remains pervasive, affecting various aspects of life, including livelihoods, identity, education, and health. The paper presents a comprehensive model to understanding marginalization, highlighting its multifaceted nature and the interplay of caste, gender, and socioeconomic factors. Based on the ideas of two influential personalities in India, Gandhi and Ambedkar, the paper proposes a model that advances a dual strategy for demarginalization, combining top-down institutional reforms with grassroots community empowerment initiatives. It is argued that an integration of indigenous knowledge and decolonial perspectives is crucial for addressing the psychological and cultural dimensions of marginalization. The paper underscores that demarginalization is not a linear process but requires a transformative approach that fosters dignity, equality, and justice. By recognizing the historical and structural roots of caste-based exclusion, the paper advocates for a holistic app","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":"106 1","pages":"396-408"},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145182720","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-09-29DOI: 10.1177/10888683251345043
Jenae M Nelson,Anne Jeffrey,Sarah A Schnitker
Academic AbstractTheories of well-being are heavily influenced by Western viewpoints; even when Majority World perspectives are incorporated, psychologists often fail to consider the rich cultural knowledge of the Indigenous peoples of North America. We propose that personality and social psychologists engage in "deep learning" (without appropriation or colonization) of a Native American Majority World perspective on well-being. We present a description of the "storywork" surrounding the concept of Mino-Bimaadiziwin, translated as "the good life" or "living in a good way," emerging for the Anishinaabeg, who are Indigenous peoples consisting of the Ojibwe (Chippewa), Potawatomi, Algonquin, Saulteaux, Nipissing, and Mississauga First Nations. We discuss the Gichi-dibaakonigewinan, The Seven Grandfather Teachings, that emerge to promote well-being, which is inherently relational and concerns harmony in contrast to happiness. Gichi-dibaakonigewinan are composed of seven virtues-Truth, Humility, Respect, Love, Bravery, Integrity, and Wisdom-whose consideration reveals pathways to well-being possible in Majority World Contexts that psychologists should consider.Public AbstractWhat is the good life, or living in a good way? Western psychology, rooted in Western philosophy, has sought to study this very question. However, researchers have not considered the perspective of the Majority World. In this paper, we present how the Anishinaabeg, who are Indigenous peoples consisting of the Ojibwe (Chippewa), Potawatomi, Algonquin, Saulteaux, Nipissing, and Mississauga First Nations, think about the good life, or Mino-Bimaadiziwin. Mino-Bimaadiziwin is characterized by the pursuit of harmony in contrast to happiness. We discuss the Gichi-dibaakonigewinan, The Seven Grandfather Teachings, that promote well-being. These Seven Grandfather Teachings are composed of seven virtues, each typified by an animal-the turtle for Truth, wolf for Humility, buffalo for Respect, eagle for Love, Bear for Courage, Raven for Integrity, and Beaver for Wisdom-whose consideration reveals pathways to well-being possible in Majority World Contexts psychologists should consider.
{"title":"Mino-Bimaadiziwin and the Pursuit of Harmony.","authors":"Jenae M Nelson,Anne Jeffrey,Sarah A Schnitker","doi":"10.1177/10888683251345043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683251345043","url":null,"abstract":"Academic AbstractTheories of well-being are heavily influenced by Western viewpoints; even when Majority World perspectives are incorporated, psychologists often fail to consider the rich cultural knowledge of the Indigenous peoples of North America. We propose that personality and social psychologists engage in \"deep learning\" (without appropriation or colonization) of a Native American Majority World perspective on well-being. We present a description of the \"storywork\" surrounding the concept of Mino-Bimaadiziwin, translated as \"the good life\" or \"living in a good way,\" emerging for the Anishinaabeg, who are Indigenous peoples consisting of the Ojibwe (Chippewa), Potawatomi, Algonquin, Saulteaux, Nipissing, and Mississauga First Nations. We discuss the Gichi-dibaakonigewinan, The Seven Grandfather Teachings, that emerge to promote well-being, which is inherently relational and concerns harmony in contrast to happiness. Gichi-dibaakonigewinan are composed of seven virtues-Truth, Humility, Respect, Love, Bravery, Integrity, and Wisdom-whose consideration reveals pathways to well-being possible in Majority World Contexts that psychologists should consider.Public AbstractWhat is the good life, or living in a good way? Western psychology, rooted in Western philosophy, has sought to study this very question. However, researchers have not considered the perspective of the Majority World. In this paper, we present how the Anishinaabeg, who are Indigenous peoples consisting of the Ojibwe (Chippewa), Potawatomi, Algonquin, Saulteaux, Nipissing, and Mississauga First Nations, think about the good life, or Mino-Bimaadiziwin. Mino-Bimaadiziwin is characterized by the pursuit of harmony in contrast to happiness. We discuss the Gichi-dibaakonigewinan, The Seven Grandfather Teachings, that promote well-being. These Seven Grandfather Teachings are composed of seven virtues, each typified by an animal-the turtle for Truth, wolf for Humility, buffalo for Respect, eagle for Love, Bear for Courage, Raven for Integrity, and Beaver for Wisdom-whose consideration reveals pathways to well-being possible in Majority World Contexts psychologists should consider.","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":"92 1","pages":"421-432"},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145182639","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：