性格优势定义的模糊性:与人格和其他心理生物学属性的比较分析

IF 2.6 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Journal of Research in Personality Pub Date : 2024-02-03 DOI:10.1016/j.jrp.2024.104469
Alexander G. Stahlmann , Gian Carlo Arbenz , Willibald Ruch
{"title":"性格优势定义的模糊性:与人格和其他心理生物学属性的比较分析","authors":"Alexander G. Stahlmann ,&nbsp;Gian Carlo Arbenz ,&nbsp;Willibald Ruch","doi":"10.1016/j.jrp.2024.104469","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Character strengths lack a consensual definition, creating ambiguity in psychological research. This exploratory study tests whether previously discussed ideas about character strengths’ shared qualities (e.g., <em>fulfilling, morally valued, traitlike</em>) distinguish them from related concepts, such as the Big Five. Ten laypersons rated 12 of these “criteria” across 80 character strengths adjectives and 170 that pertained to the Big Five, emotions, anatomy, and bodily states. Results indicate that one or two criteria suffice to define character strengths with about 74% accuracy. However, these criteria could not distinguish character strengths from the Big Five, suggesting they may belong to the same conceptual category. We recommend adopting one of five working definitions based on these findings when introducing character strengths in future research.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48406,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Personality","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656624000175/pdfft?md5=1bd353ad6049b6f88effc8156144eee5&pid=1-s2.0-S0092656624000175-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Definitional ambiguities in character strengths: A comparative analysis with personality and other psychobiological attributes\",\"authors\":\"Alexander G. Stahlmann ,&nbsp;Gian Carlo Arbenz ,&nbsp;Willibald Ruch\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jrp.2024.104469\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Character strengths lack a consensual definition, creating ambiguity in psychological research. This exploratory study tests whether previously discussed ideas about character strengths’ shared qualities (e.g., <em>fulfilling, morally valued, traitlike</em>) distinguish them from related concepts, such as the Big Five. Ten laypersons rated 12 of these “criteria” across 80 character strengths adjectives and 170 that pertained to the Big Five, emotions, anatomy, and bodily states. Results indicate that one or two criteria suffice to define character strengths with about 74% accuracy. However, these criteria could not distinguish character strengths from the Big Five, suggesting they may belong to the same conceptual category. We recommend adopting one of five working definitions based on these findings when introducing character strengths in future research.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48406,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Research in Personality\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656624000175/pdfft?md5=1bd353ad6049b6f88effc8156144eee5&pid=1-s2.0-S0092656624000175-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Research in Personality\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656624000175\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research in Personality","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656624000175","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

性格优势缺乏一致的定义,给心理学研究带来了模糊性。这项探索性研究检验了之前讨论过的关于性格优势共同品质的观点(如满足感、道德价值、特质)是否将性格优势与五大性格优势等相关概念区分开来。十位非专业人士对 80 个性格优势形容词中的 12 个 "标准 "和 170 个与五大性格优势、情绪、解剖学和身体状态相关的形容词进行了评分。结果表明,一到两个标准就足以定义性格优势,准确率约为 74%。然而,这些标准并不能将性格优势与五大性格优势区分开来,这表明它们可能属于同一概念范畴。我们建议在未来的研究中引入性格优势时,根据这些发现采用五个工作定义中的一个。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Definitional ambiguities in character strengths: A comparative analysis with personality and other psychobiological attributes

Character strengths lack a consensual definition, creating ambiguity in psychological research. This exploratory study tests whether previously discussed ideas about character strengths’ shared qualities (e.g., fulfilling, morally valued, traitlike) distinguish them from related concepts, such as the Big Five. Ten laypersons rated 12 of these “criteria” across 80 character strengths adjectives and 170 that pertained to the Big Five, emotions, anatomy, and bodily states. Results indicate that one or two criteria suffice to define character strengths with about 74% accuracy. However, these criteria could not distinguish character strengths from the Big Five, suggesting they may belong to the same conceptual category. We recommend adopting one of five working definitions based on these findings when introducing character strengths in future research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
6.10%
发文量
102
审稿时长
67 days
期刊介绍: Emphasizing experimental and descriptive research, the Journal of Research in Personality presents articles that examine important issues in the field of personality and in related fields basic to the understanding of personality. The subject matter includes treatments of genetic, physiological, motivational, learning, perceptual, cognitive, and social processes of both normal and abnormal kinds in human and animal subjects. Features: • Papers that present integrated sets of studies that address significant theoretical issues relating to personality. • Theoretical papers and critical reviews of current experimental and methodological interest. • Single, well-designed studies of an innovative nature. • Brief reports, including replication or null result studies of previously reported findings, or a well-designed studies addressing questions of limited scope.
期刊最新文献
Agentic collective narcissism and communal collective narcissism: Do they predict COVID-19 pandemic-related beliefs and behaviors? Optimism and pessimism were prospectively associated with adaptation during the COVID-19 pandemic Age and gender differences in the value development of Dutch adults in 11 years of longitudinal data An investigation testing the perceptual advantage of Sensory Processing Sensitivity and its associations with the Big Five personality traits Self/observer agreement in personality assessment by observers’ relationship types
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1