Can personality traits and intelligence compensate for background disadvantage? Predicting status attainment in adulthood.

This paper investigates the interplay of family background and individual differences, such as personality traits and intelligence (measured in a large US representative sample of high school students; N = 81,000) in predicting educational attainment, annual income, and occupational prestige eleven years later. Specifically, we tested whether individual differences followed one of three patterns in relation to parental SES when predicting attained status: (a) the independent effects hypothesis (i.e., individual differences predict attainments independent of parental SES level), (b) the resource substitution hypothesis (i.e., individual differences are stronger predictors of attainments at lower levels of parental SES), and (c) the Matthew effect hypothesis (i.e., “the rich get richer,” individual differences are stronger predictors of attainments at higher levels of parental SES). We found that personality traits and intelligence in adolescence predicted later attained status above and beyond parental SES. A standard deviation increase in individual differences translated to up to 8 additional months of education, $4,233 annually, and more prestigious occupations. Furthermore, although we did find some evidence for both the resource substitution and the Matthew effect hypotheses, the most robust pattern across all models supported the independent effects hypothesis. Intelligence was the exception, where interaction models were more robust. Finally, we found that although personality traits may help compensate for background disadvantage to a small extent, they do not usually lead to a “full catch up” effect, unlike intelligence. This was the first longitudinal study of status attainment to test interactive models of individual differences and background factors

A process-dissociation examination of the cognitive processes underlying unconscious thought

Conscious and unconscious thought have been previously found to differentially impact decision-making quality. However, little research has directly measured the processes underlying these modes of thinking. We propose that both thinking modes are characterized by rule-based and intuitive processing. In two experiments, we used the Process Dissociation Procedure to independently measure these cognitive processes. We tested three competing hypotheses: (a) conscious thinking evokes both increased rule-based and decreased intuitive processing compared to unconscious thinking; (b) conscious and unconscious thinking evoke similar levels of intuitive processing but conscious thinking enhances rule-based processing; and (c) conscious and unconscious thinking evoke similar levels of rule-based processing but unconscious thinking enhances intuitive processing. Experiment 1 used base-rate and law-of-large-numbers decision-making problems, whereas Experiment 2 used decision-making problems similar to the "apartment" problem that is often used in unconscious thought studies. In both experiments we found support for hypothesis (b). © 2012 Elsevier Inc

Why Has Personality Psychology Played an Outsized Role in the Credibility Revolution?

21 pages. Published at PsychOpen: 10.5964/ps.6001Personality is not the most popular subfield of psychology. But, in one way or another, personality psychologists have played an outsized role in the ongoing “credibility revolution” in psychology. Not only have individual personality psychologists taken on visible roles in the movement, but our field’s practices and norms have now become models for other fields to emulate (or, for those who share Baumeister’s (2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.02.003) skeptical view of the consequences of increasing rigor, a model for what to avoid). In this article we discuss some unique features of our field that may have placed us in an ideal position to be leaders in this movement. We do so from a subjective perspective, describing our impressions and opinions about possible explanations for personality psychology’s disproportionate role in the credibility revolution. We also discuss some ways in which personality psychology remains less-than-optimal, and how we can address these flaws

Whose self-control development suffers or benefits in the face of adversity? A longitudinal study of Mexican-origin youth followed from age 10 to 16

This study assessed the co-development of adversity and effortful control based on a sample of Mexican-origin youth (N = 674) and their parents. We used a four-wave longitudinal design and followed target participants from age 10 to 16. At each time point, we measured adversity experienced by the children and their parents and children’s effortful control (self- and parent-reported). We also assessed children’s shift-and-persist coping strategies at ages 14 and 16. Across time, we found slight decreases in child-adversity and slight increases in parent-adversity. Based on bivariate LGC analyses, we found that the strongest effects surfaced for child- (vs. parent-) adversity. Specifically, we found that greater increases in child-adversity were associated with greater decreases in effortful control from ages 10 to 16. Moreover, we found a positive association between initial levels of child-adversity and the slope of effortful control, as well as a cross-sectional negative association between child- and parent-adversity and effortful control (at age 10). We found no evidence of moderation by shift-and-persist coping strategies. In sum, our results suggest that, on average, Mexican-origin youth exposed to more adversity might experience more maladaptive change with respect to effortful control

The co-development of chores and effortful control among Mexican-origin youth and prospective work outcomes

The present research examined: (a) the co-development of chores and effortful control, and (b) the prospective impact of effortful control development (i.e., initial levels and the trajectory of effortful control from late childhood through adolescence) on work outcomes in young adulthood. We used data from a longitudinal study of 674 Mexican-origin youth assessed at ages 10, 12, 14, 16, and 19. We found no evidence of co-developmental associations between chores and effortful control, but we found that higher initial levels of effortful control (age 10) predicted working-student status, less job stress, and better job fit, and steeper increases in effortful control from age 10 to 16 predicted higher job satisfaction and job autonomy in young adulthood (age 19)

Can personality traits and intelligence compensate for background disadvantage? Predicting status attainment in adulthood.

This paper investigates the interplay of family background and individual differences, such as personality traits and intelligence (measured in a large US representative sample of high school students; N = 81,000) in predicting educational attainment, annual income, and occupational prestige eleven years later. Specifically, we tested whether individual differences followed one of three patterns in relation to parental SES when predicting attained status: (a) the independent effects hypothesis (i.e., individual differences predict attainments independent of parental SES level), (b) the resource substitution hypothesis (i.e., individual differences are stronger predictors of attainments at lower levels of parental SES), and (c) the Matthew effect hypothesis (i.e., “the rich get richer,” individual differences are stronger predictors of attainments at higher levels of parental SES). We found that personality traits and intelligence in adolescence predicted later attained status above and beyond parental SES. A standard deviation increase in individual differences translated to up to 8 additional months of education, $4,233 annually, and more prestigious occupations. Furthermore, although we did find some evidence for both the resource substitution and the Matthew effect hypotheses, the most robust pattern across all models supported the independent effects hypothesis. Intelligence was the exception, where interaction models were more robust. Finally, we found that although personality traits may help compensate for background disadvantage to a small extent, they do not usually lead to a “full catch up” effect, unlike intelligence. This was the first longitudinal study of status attainment to test interactive models of individual differences and background factors

Can personality traits and intelligence compensate for background disadvantage? Predicting status attainment in adulthood.

This study investigated the interplay of family background and individual differences, such as personality traits and intelligence (measured in a large U.S. representative sample of high school students; N = 81,000) in predicting educational attainment, annual income, and occupational prestige 11 years later. Specifically, we tested whether individual differences followed 1 of 3 patterns in relation to parental socioeconomic status (SES) when predicting attained status: (a) the independent effects hypothesis (i.e., individual differences predict attainments independent of parental SES level), (b) the resource substitution hypothesis (i.e., individual differences are stronger predictors of attainments at lower levels of parental SES), and (c) the Matthew effect hypothesis (i.e., “the rich get richer”; individual differences are stronger predictors of attainments at higher levels of parental SES). We found that personality traits and intelligence in adolescence predicted later attained status above and beyond parental SES. A standard deviation increase in individual differences translated to up to 8 additional months of education, $4,233 annually, and more prestigious occupations. Furthermore, although we did find some evidence for both the resource substitution and the Matthew effect hypotheses, the most robust pattern across all models supported the independent effects hypothesis. Intelligence was the exception, the interaction models being more robust. Finally, we found that although personality traits may help compensate for background disadvantage to a small extent, they do not usually lead to a “full catch-up” effect, unlike intelligence. This was the first longitudinal study of status attainment to test interactive models of individual differences and background factors