Same processes, different outcomes

Hopwood makes a compelling case for integration of the two largely distinct fields of basic personality and personality disorder psychology into a comprehensive model. Although I embrace the idea, the steps argued necessary to help the field forwards are inherently related to challenges that make applicability of such a comprehensive model in research and policy easier said than done. I briefly outline the two issues I think are most central in this: developing a comprehensive view and increasing attention for dynamic, within‐person processes

Dietary modifiers of carcinogenesis.

Dietary components express a wide range of activities that can affect carcinogenesis. Naturally occurring substances in foods have been shown in laboratory experiments to serve as dietary antimutagens, either as bioantimutagens or as desmutagens. Dietary desmutagens may function as chemical inactivaters, enzymatic inducers, scavengers, or antioxidants. Dietary components may also act later in the carcinogenic process as tumor growth suppressors. Examples of dietary factors acting in each of these stages of carcinogenesis are presented, and potential anticarcinogens such as the carotenoids, tocopherols, phenolic compounds, glucosinolates, metal-binding proteins, phytoestrogens, and conjugated linoleic acid are discussed. Individual foods typically contain multiple potential anticarcinogens. Many of these substances can influence carcinogenesis through more than one mechanism. Some substances exhibit both anticarcinogenic and carcinogenic activity in vitro, depending on conditions. Epidemiologic research indicates that high fruit and vegetable consumption is associated with lower cancer risk. Little research has focused on the effects of single substances or single foods in man. Realization of the potential of foodborne substances to reduce the human burden of cancer will only be achieved with better measurement of dietary exposures and funding of multidisciplinary research in this area commensurate with its importance

Big Five and HEXACO Personality Traits, pro-environmental attitudes, and behaviors:A meta-analysis

With climate change and its consequences believed to be among the most vital challenges for humanity and the Earth’s ecosystem, it is important to understand why individuals do or do not adopt proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors. Personality traits are well suited for this purpose. Because no recent work has systematically combined the accumulating evidence on this topic, we aimed to meta-analyze the associations of the Big Five and HEXACO personality domains with proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors. A meta-analysis of 38 sources (N = 44,993) implicated openness and honesty-humility as the strongest correlates of proenvironmental attitudes (r = .22 and .20) and behaviors (r = .21 and .25). Agreeableness, conscientiousness, and, to a lesser extent, extraversion were also associated with proenvironmental attitudes (r = .15, .12, and .09) and behaviors (r = .10, .11, and .10). Heterogeneity among effect sizes was partly explained by samples’ gender ratio, age, and country of origin and by the personality model. P-curve analyses, funnel plots, and Egger's tests indicated significant but sporadic and small publication bias. As a validity test, the meta-analytic associations collectively provided substantial predictive accuracy for proenvironmental attitudes (r = .44-.45) and behaviors (r = .28-.43) in independent holdout samples

Do self-reports and informant-ratings measure the same personality constructs?

Personality researchers often supplement or substitute self-reports with ratings from knowledgeable informants, at least implicitly assuming that the same constructs are being measured regardless of the source of ratings. However, measurement invariance (MI) of personality constructs across these rating types has rarely been empirically tested. Here, this was done for the Five-Factor Model domains and their 30 facets (N = 3,253). All facets and all domains but Agreeableness met the level of invariance (metric MI) required for comparing the relative standings of individuals across self-reports and informant-ratings, which is what researchers mostly do. However, ten facets and the Agreeableness domain failed to achieve the level of invariance (scalar MI) recommended when comparing mean scores. In conclusion, self-reports and informant-ratings appear to measure similar constructs for most research purposes