Beth Clarke, Lindsay J. Alley, Sakshi Ghai, J. Flake, Julia M. Rohrer, Joseph P. Simmons, Sarah R. Schiavone, S. Vazire
The replication crisis and subsequent credibility revolution in psychology have highlighted many suboptimal research practices such as p‐hacking, overgeneralizing, and a lack of transparency. These practices may have been employed reflexively but upon reflection, they are hard to defend. We suggest that current practices for reporting and discussing study limitations are another example of an area where there is much room for improvement. In this article, we call for more rigorous reporting of study limitations in social and personality psychology articles, and we offer advice for how to do this. We recommend that authors consider what the best argument is against their conclusions (which we call the “steel‐person principle”). We consider limitations as threats to construct, internal, external, and statistical conclusion validity (Shadish et al., 2002), and offer some examples for better practice reporting of common study limitations. Our advice has its own limitations — both our representation of current practices and our recommendations are largely based on our own metaresearch and opinions. Nevertheless, we hope that we can prompt researchers to write more deeply and clearly about the limitations of their research, and to hold each other to higher standards when reviewing each other's work.
{"title":"Looking our limitations in the eye: A call for more thorough and honest reporting of study limitations","authors":"Beth Clarke, Lindsay J. Alley, Sakshi Ghai, J. Flake, Julia M. Rohrer, Joseph P. Simmons, Sarah R. Schiavone, S. Vazire","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12979","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12979","url":null,"abstract":"The replication crisis and subsequent credibility revolution in psychology have highlighted many suboptimal research practices such as p‐hacking, overgeneralizing, and a lack of transparency. These practices may have been employed reflexively but upon reflection, they are hard to defend. We suggest that current practices for reporting and discussing study limitations are another example of an area where there is much room for improvement. In this article, we call for more rigorous reporting of study limitations in social and personality psychology articles, and we offer advice for how to do this. We recommend that authors consider what the best argument is against their conclusions (which we call the “steel‐person principle”). We consider limitations as threats to construct, internal, external, and statistical conclusion validity (Shadish et al., 2002), and offer some examples for better practice reporting of common study limitations. Our advice has its own limitations — both our representation of current practices and our recommendations are largely based on our own metaresearch and opinions. Nevertheless, we hope that we can prompt researchers to write more deeply and clearly about the limitations of their research, and to hold each other to higher standards when reviewing each other's work.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141692924","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The college transition is a multifaceted experience. Navigating the unfamiliar terrain of college allows for tremendous growth and self‐discovery while simultaneously evoking fear and uncertainty as students encounter new struggles. How students come to make sense of their transition experiences, especially moments of struggle, informs how they come to define who they are, who they can become, and where they belong. Robust psychological investigation has advanced three motivations for making sense of struggle: the need to understand, the need for self‐integrity, and the need to belong. Scholars target these motivations to design educational interventions and improve outcomes for students from marginalized backgrounds. What is missing is an exploration of how the uncertainty and marginalization arising from negotiating multiple social worlds can incite paradoxical expectations, messages, and cues that shape these three motivations for meaning‐making. In this paper, we aim to nuance these three motivations by attending to paradoxes. Unearthing the paradoxes lurking within each motivation advances a better understanding of what it means to make meaning from the margins and, consequently, offers new directions and possibilities for psychological research.
{"title":"Paradoxes, uncertainty, and resistance: A psychology of meaning‐making at the margins","authors":"Rebecca Covarrubias, Giselle Laiduc","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12980","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12980","url":null,"abstract":"The college transition is a multifaceted experience. Navigating the unfamiliar terrain of college allows for tremendous growth and self‐discovery while simultaneously evoking fear and uncertainty as students encounter new struggles. How students come to make sense of their transition experiences, especially moments of struggle, informs how they come to define who they are, who they can become, and where they belong. Robust psychological investigation has advanced three motivations for making sense of struggle: the need to understand, the need for self‐integrity, and the need to belong. Scholars target these motivations to design educational interventions and improve outcomes for students from marginalized backgrounds. What is missing is an exploration of how the uncertainty and marginalization arising from negotiating multiple social worlds can incite paradoxical expectations, messages, and cues that shape these three motivations for meaning‐making. In this paper, we aim to nuance these three motivations by attending to paradoxes. Unearthing the paradoxes lurking within each motivation advances a better understanding of what it means to make meaning from the margins and, consequently, offers new directions and possibilities for psychological research.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141502329","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Christine Reyna, Kaelan J. Vazquez, Miguel Vazquez, Fade R. Eadeh, Kara Harris
Social and political psychologists have focused on how liberals and conservatives differ from one another and have developed a vast literature on individual differences and fixed attributes that distinguish ideological groups. However, ideological orientations might be more contextual and flexible than what is often portrayed in research. We present a novel look at ideological variability as an intragroup phenomenon that makes liberals and conservatives nuanced, heterogeneous, and more similar to one another—important perspectives for reducing ideological stereotyping and polarization. In this paper, we review patterns showing ideological variability and overlap in thinking, emotions, attitudes, and behaviors across the lifespan, geographical regions, status groups, and diverse cultures around the world. By understanding the social psychological and situational factors associated with intragroup variability in ideology, we can develop more culturally inclusive models of ideology and map out better solutions to polarization.
{"title":"Left and right ideological orientations as intragroup strategies of cultural preservation and promotion","authors":"Christine Reyna, Kaelan J. Vazquez, Miguel Vazquez, Fade R. Eadeh, Kara Harris","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12976","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12976","url":null,"abstract":"Social and political psychologists have focused on how liberals and conservatives differ from one another and have developed a vast literature on individual differences and fixed attributes that distinguish ideological groups. However, ideological orientations might be more contextual and flexible than what is often portrayed in research. We present a novel look at ideological variability as an intragroup phenomenon that makes liberals and conservatives nuanced, heterogeneous, and more similar to one another—important perspectives for reducing ideological stereotyping and polarization. In this paper, we review patterns showing ideological variability and overlap in thinking, emotions, attitudes, and behaviors across the lifespan, geographical regions, status groups, and diverse cultures around the world. By understanding the social psychological and situational factors associated with intragroup variability in ideology, we can develop more culturally inclusive models of ideology and map out better solutions to polarization.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141401111","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Theory and research support a distinction between two forms of narcissism: grandiose and vulnerable. People high in grandiose narcissism are arrogant, extraverted, and authoritative, whereas people high in vulnerable narcissism are insecure, introverted, and diffident. I propose that a useful approach to understanding these two forms of narcissism is to view them through a socio‐evolutionary lens. Guided by evolutionary adaptationist models of rank and, more specifically, by hierometer theory, I put forward a novel theoretical account of both forms of narcissism and examine contemporary research in light of it. Specifically, I conceptualize grandiose and vulnerable narcissism as two alternative status‐seeking strategies. Whereas grandiose narcissism appears to operate as a status‐promoting “hawk” strategy, vulnerable narcissism appears to operate as a status‐protecting “dove” strategy. This parsimonious and functional account of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism sheds light on their similarities and differences, explains disparate and seemingly contradictory findings in the literature, and informs a better understanding of the paradoxical nature of narcissism.
{"title":"Conceptualizing grandiose and vulnerable narcissism as alternative status‐seeking strategies: Insights from hierometer theory","authors":"Nikhila Mahadevan","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12977","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12977","url":null,"abstract":"Theory and research support a distinction between two forms of narcissism: grandiose and vulnerable. People high in grandiose narcissism are arrogant, extraverted, and authoritative, whereas people high in vulnerable narcissism are insecure, introverted, and diffident. I propose that a useful approach to understanding these two forms of narcissism is to view them through a socio‐evolutionary lens. Guided by evolutionary adaptationist models of rank and, more specifically, by hierometer theory, I put forward a novel theoretical account of both forms of narcissism and examine contemporary research in light of it. Specifically, I conceptualize grandiose and vulnerable narcissism as two alternative status‐seeking strategies. Whereas grandiose narcissism appears to operate as a status‐promoting “hawk” strategy, vulnerable narcissism appears to operate as a status‐protecting “dove” strategy. This parsimonious and functional account of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism sheds light on their similarities and differences, explains disparate and seemingly contradictory findings in the literature, and informs a better understanding of the paradoxical nature of narcissism.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141392722","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
How do people identify new and better lifegoals for themselves? The goal breakthrough model (GBM) purports to answer this question. The GBM draws from creative process theories of preparation, incubation, illumination, and elaboration to explain how people “cross the Rubicon” to new purposes, in response to felt dissatisfaction. Neuroscience research supporting the GBM is reviewed, highlighting brain‐sequences linking Default Mode Network activity, Cognitive Control Network activity, and Salience Network activity. This understanding of the neural basis of creative goal‐functioning informs an elaborated version of the GBM, one that is less linear and more dynamic than its predecessor model. Overall, the GBM proposes a novel explanation for how people can actively prompt their nonconscious minds to provide new and better behavioral alternatives to consider.
{"title":"How people find better lifegoals: The goal breakthrough model and its neuroscientific underpinnings","authors":"Kennon M. Sheldon, Woogul Lee, Johnmarshall Reeve","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12974","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12974","url":null,"abstract":"How do people identify new and better lifegoals for themselves? The goal breakthrough model (GBM) purports to answer this question. The GBM draws from creative process theories of preparation, incubation, illumination, and elaboration to explain how people “cross the Rubicon” to new purposes, in response to felt dissatisfaction. Neuroscience research supporting the GBM is reviewed, highlighting brain‐sequences linking Default Mode Network activity, Cognitive Control Network activity, and Salience Network activity. This understanding of the neural basis of creative goal‐functioning informs an elaborated version of the GBM, one that is less linear and more dynamic than its predecessor model. Overall, the GBM proposes a novel explanation for how people can actively prompt their nonconscious minds to provide new and better behavioral alternatives to consider.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141189558","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article highlights the value in taking a multi‐temporal perspective to the literature on underdogs and favorites in competitive contexts. We contend that an inherent feature of the psychological experience of being an underdog or favorite is the coexistence of thoughts related to the past and future. Building upon this key insight, we adopt a multi‐temporal lens to compare current research on underdogs and favorites to the broader literature studying competition and motivation in intergroup contexts, with the goal of identifying possible areas of coherence and contradiction in relation to other relevant theoretical frameworks. Through this analysis, we put forth a set of what we hope are thought‐provoking research questions that are intended to guide and inspire future work in this domain.
{"title":"Underdogs and favorites: Past, present, and future","authors":"Nathan C. Pettit, Sarah P. Doyle, Robert B. Lount","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12973","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12973","url":null,"abstract":"This article highlights the value in taking a multi‐temporal perspective to the literature on underdogs and favorites in competitive contexts. We contend that an inherent feature of the psychological experience of being an underdog or favorite is the coexistence of thoughts related to the past and future. Building upon this key insight, we adopt a multi‐temporal lens to compare current research on underdogs and favorites to the broader literature studying competition and motivation in intergroup contexts, with the goal of identifying possible areas of coherence and contradiction in relation to other relevant theoretical frameworks. Through this analysis, we put forth a set of what we hope are thought‐provoking research questions that are intended to guide and inspire future work in this domain.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141189494","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Benjamin Gardner, Amanda L. Rebar, Sanne de Wit, Phillippa Lally
Habit change is often seen as key to successful long‐term behaviour change. Making ‘good’ behaviours habitual—that is, ensuring a behaviour is prompted automatically on exposure to situational cues, based on cue‐response associations learnt through context‐consistent repetition—is portrayed as a mechanism for sustaining such behaviours over time. Conversely, disrupting ‘bad’ habits is expected to terminate longstanding unwanted actions. Yet, some commentators have suggested that the role of habit in real‐world behaviour and behaviour change has been overstated. Such critiques highlight a gap between habit theory and the reality of human behaviour ‘in the wild’. This state‐of‐the‐field review aims to narrow this gap. Building on a core distinction between habit and habitual behaviour, our review seeks to offer interpretations of habit theory and evidence that will better manage intervention designers' expectations regarding how modifying habit can realistically be expected to promote behaviour change. We emphasise that habit is just one potential influence on behaviour at any given moment, and highlight instances in which habit may dominate over intention, and in which intention may dominate over habit, in determining behaviour frequency. We suggest that, while it may assist behaviour maintenance, habit formation may be neither necessary nor sufficient to sustain real‐world behaviour change. We draw attention to the various ways in which habit may be ‘broken’ (i.e., disrupted), and discern the implications of each habit disruption mechanism for long‐term cessation of unwanted behaviours.
{"title":"What is habit and how can it be used to change real‐world behaviour? Narrowing the theory‐reality gap","authors":"Benjamin Gardner, Amanda L. Rebar, Sanne de Wit, Phillippa Lally","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12975","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12975","url":null,"abstract":"Habit change is often seen as key to successful long‐term behaviour change. Making ‘good’ behaviours habitual—that is, ensuring a behaviour is prompted automatically on exposure to situational cues, based on cue‐response associations learnt through context‐consistent repetition—is portrayed as a mechanism for sustaining such behaviours over time. Conversely, disrupting ‘bad’ habits is expected to terminate longstanding unwanted actions. Yet, some commentators have suggested that the role of habit in real‐world behaviour and behaviour change has been overstated. Such critiques highlight a gap between habit theory and the reality of human behaviour ‘in the wild’. This state‐of‐the‐field review aims to narrow this gap. Building on a core distinction between <jats:italic>habit</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>habitual behaviour</jats:italic>, our review seeks to offer interpretations of habit theory and evidence that will better manage intervention designers' expectations regarding how modifying habit can realistically be expected to promote behaviour change. We emphasise that habit is just one potential influence on behaviour at any given moment, and highlight instances in which habit may dominate over intention, and in which intention may dominate over habit, in determining behaviour frequency. We suggest that, while it may assist behaviour maintenance, habit formation may be neither necessary nor sufficient to sustain real‐world behaviour change. We draw attention to the various ways in which habit may be ‘broken’ (i.e., disrupted), and discern the implications of each habit disruption mechanism for long‐term cessation of unwanted behaviours.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141189553","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
From becoming a teenager to starting university, life transitions are an inevitable part of human existence. While exciting, life transitions can be stressful because they involve changes in identity, routine, and expectations. What can support people during this period of change? Informed by past research demonstrating the emotional benefits of prosocial behavior, we examined whether everyday acts of prosociality might predict well‐being during a life transition using a pre‐registered 6‐week diary study conducted with students starting university (N = 193; 1544 observations). Consistent with pre‐registered hypotheses, participants experienced higher well‐being on scales capturing happiness, flourishing, thriving, optimism, resilience, anxiety and loneliness during weeks in which they completed more prosocial acts than their personal average. This research extends our understanding of the relationship between prosociality and well‐being to new theoretically relevant contexts, including extended, multi‐faceted personal stressors, and suggests that one potentially useful route to well‐being during life transitions could be helping others.
{"title":"Everyday acts of kindness predict greater well‐being during the transition to university","authors":"Tiara A. Cash, Lara B. Aknin, Yuthika U. Girme","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12972","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12972","url":null,"abstract":"From becoming a teenager to starting university, life transitions are an inevitable part of human existence. While exciting, life transitions can be stressful because they involve changes in identity, routine, and expectations. What can support people during this period of change? Informed by past research demonstrating the emotional benefits of prosocial behavior, we examined whether everyday acts of prosociality might predict well‐being during a life transition using a pre‐registered 6‐week diary study conducted with students starting university (<jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 193; 1544 observations). Consistent with pre‐registered hypotheses, participants experienced higher well‐being on scales capturing happiness, flourishing, thriving, optimism, resilience, anxiety and loneliness during weeks in which they completed more prosocial acts than their personal average. This research extends our understanding of the relationship between prosociality and well‐being to new theoretically relevant contexts, including extended, multi‐faceted personal stressors, and suggests that one potentially useful route to well‐being during life transitions could be helping others.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141189492","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article investigates the links between the Big Five personality traits and self‐efficacy, perceived stress, and life satisfaction during the COVID‐19 pandemic on a large sample of Czech university students and lecturers (N = 11,824). The study's findings indicate that during the pandemic, negative emotionality was strongly associated with both perceived stress and life satisfaction. The study also reveals a positive link between extraversion and perceived stress across the entire sample, and in the student group specifically, extraversion was negatively associated with life satisfaction. This suggests that a high level of extraversion may not act as a protective factor in situations of limited social contact, for example, under the social restriction mandates during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Additionally, self‐efficacy was associated with higher satisfaction with life but also higher perceived stress. This finding contradicts previous research conducted before and during the pandemic and warrants further investigation. Interestingly, the links between personality traits, self‐efficacy, perceived stress, and life satisfaction were not significantly moderated by professional position. Both lecturers and students experienced similar disruptions to their daily routines, social isolation, and financial concerns during the pandemic.
{"title":"University students' and lecturers' perceived stress and satisfaction with life during the COVID‐19 pandemic: The role of personality traits and self‐efficacy","authors":"David Lacko, Jiří Čeněk, Martina Hřebíčková","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12957","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12957","url":null,"abstract":"This article investigates the links between the Big Five personality traits and self‐efficacy, perceived stress, and life satisfaction during the COVID‐19 pandemic on a large sample of Czech university students and lecturers (<jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 11,824). The study's findings indicate that during the pandemic, negative emotionality was strongly associated with both perceived stress and life satisfaction. The study also reveals a positive link between extraversion and perceived stress across the entire sample, and in the student group specifically, extraversion was negatively associated with life satisfaction. This suggests that a high level of extraversion may not act as a protective factor in situations of limited social contact, for example, under the social restriction mandates during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Additionally, self‐efficacy was associated with higher satisfaction with life but also higher perceived stress. This finding contradicts previous research conducted before and during the pandemic and warrants further investigation. Interestingly, the links between personality traits, self‐efficacy, perceived stress, and life satisfaction were not significantly moderated by professional position. Both lecturers and students experienced similar disruptions to their daily routines, social isolation, and financial concerns during the pandemic.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140933254","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Consideration of how interrelated social structures relate with personality has been limited. In this paper, we discuss how researchers might apply an intersectional framework–which uses a social justice lens to examine how social structures are interconnected and impact individuals—at three distinct levels of personality including traits, characteristic adaptations, and integrative life narratives. We begin by providing conceptualizations of personality and intersectionality and describe considerations for their integration, including the need to widen the methodological and epistemological scope of personality science. Key areas of research that demonstrate the promise of an intersectional framework for unpacking structures of power and oppression in relation to the person are then described for each level of personality. Specifically, recommendations for how an intersectional framework may be used to examine structural identity domains in relation to trait levels, values and goals, as well as the content and process of narrated lives are offered. We conclude with discussion of how application of an intersectional framework is crucial for promoting inclusion and generalizability in personality science.
{"title":"Integrating personality psychology and intersectionality to advance diversity in the study of persons","authors":"Dulce Wilkinson Westberg, Moin Syed","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12956","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12956","url":null,"abstract":"Consideration of how interrelated social structures relate with personality has been limited. In this paper, we discuss how researchers might apply an <jats:italic>intersectional framework</jats:italic>–which uses a social justice lens to examine how social structures are interconnected and impact individuals—at three distinct levels of personality including <jats:italic>traits</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>characteristic adaptations</jats:italic>, and <jats:italic>integrative life narratives</jats:italic>. We begin by providing conceptualizations of personality and intersectionality and describe considerations for their integration, including the need to widen the methodological and epistemological scope of personality science. Key areas of research that demonstrate the promise of an intersectional framework for unpacking structures of power and oppression in relation to the person are then described for each level of personality. Specifically, recommendations for how an intersectional framework may be used to examine structural identity domains in relation to trait levels, values and goals, as well as the content and process of narrated lives are offered. We conclude with discussion of how application of an intersectional framework is crucial for promoting inclusion and generalizability in personality science.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140933427","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"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：