Extraversion as a process: The effects of extraverted “states”

Trait and processing approaches to the study of personality were combined to investigate processes associated with trait-extraversion (trait-E), and the validity of a measure of “trait-relevant states” of extraversion (TRS-E). Ninety-eight undergraduates were subjected in groups to two experimental manipulations intended to evoke or suppress TRS-E (on separate days). The participants also completed two measures of trait-E, one measure of trait positive affectivity (PA), and several pre and/or postmanipulation assessments, including assessments of TRS-E, a behavioral preferences measure, a social interaction preference task, and several cognitive tasks. Replicating previous findings, trait-E was shown to correspond to TRS-E levels; manipulations successfully evoked and suppressed TRS-E; the effects of trait-E, TRS-E and the manipulations on behavioral preferences were established; and TRS-E was shown to mediate many of the trait and manipulation effects on the behavioral dependent variables. Expanding beyond replication, the present study also demonstrated the convergent and divergent validity of TRS-E with two separate measures of trait-E and measures of trait and state-PA. The relationships between trait-E, TRS-E, and the cognitive and perceptual variables were also explored, as well as the effects of the manipulations upon those cognitive variables. The experimental manipulations rarely affected the cognitive variables, and few relationships existed between trait or state extraversion and the cognitive variables. Of the cognitive variables, Trait-E was somewhat more likely to predict cognitive variables assessing creative cognitive content. Meanwhile, the manipulations were more likely to affect responses to an extraversion-relevant cognitive estimation task. However, TRS-E did not significantly mediate these cognitive effects. Thus, trait-E and situations appeared to affect certain dependent variables independent of TRS-E. These results suggest that TRS-E is primarily behavioral and affective in nature; but there may exist a relatively separate cognitive component of extraversion

Public Engagement for Informing Science and Technology Policy: What Do We Know, What Do We Need to Know, and How Will We Get There?

This article examines social science relevant to public engagements and identifies the challenges to the goal of meaningful public input into science and technology policy. Specifically, when considering “which forms, features, and conditions of public engagement are optimal for what purposes, and why?” we find social science has not clarified matters. We offer a model to guide systematic research that defines and empirically connects variations in features and types of public engagement activities to specifically defined variations in effective processes and outcomes. The specification of models, as we have done, will guide policy makers, practitioners, and the public in determining what kinds of engagement techniques are optimal for what kinds of purposes. Our model is presented to start conversations and inspire research that in the future should help to ensure meaningful public participation that meets the promise of contributing thoughtful societal values and perspectives into governmental policies impacting science and technology research

What Do We Assess When We Assess a Big 5 Trait? : A Content Analysis of the Affective, Behavioral, and Cognitive Processes Represented in Big 5 Personality Inventories

What are personality traits? Are all “broad” traits equally broad in the constructs they encompass and in the pervasiveness of their effects? Or are some traits more or less affective, behavioral, or cognitive in nature? The present study examined these issues as they applied to the Big 5 traits of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Expert and novice raters judged the extent to which items from four popular Big 5 inventories contain behavioral, cognitive, or affective components. Traits and inventories were then compared in terms of their relative assessment of these components. Results indicate convergence among inventories but remarkable differences between traits. These findings have implications for the conceptualization and assessment of traits and suggest directions for future research

Electronic Health Records: Eliciting Behavioral Health Providers’ Beliefs [Brief Reports]

Interviews with 32 community behavioral health providers elicited perceived benefits and barriers of using electronic health records. Themes identified were (a) quality of care, (b) privacy and security, and (c) delivery of services. Benefits to quality of care were mentioned by 100% of the providers, and barriers by 59% of providers. Barriers involving privacy and security concerns were mentioned by 100% of providers, and benefits by 22%. Barriers to delivery of services were mentioned by 97% of providers, and benefits by 66%. Most providers (81%) expressed overall positive support for electronic behavioral health records

Exploring Separable Components of Institutional Confidence

Despite its contemporary and theoretical importance in numerous social scientific disciplines, institutional confidence research is limited by a lack of consensus regarding the distinctions and relationships among related constructs (e.g., trust, confidence, legitimacy, distrust, etc.). This study examined four confidence-related constructs that have been used in studies of trust/confidence in the courts: dispositional trust, trust in institutions, obligation to obey the law, and cynicism. First, the separability of the four constructs was examined by exploratory factor analyses. Relationships among the constructs were also assessed. Next, multiple regression analyses were used to explore each construct’s independent contribution to confidence in the courts. Finally, a second study replicated the first study and also examined the stability of the institutional confidence constructs over time. Results supported the hypothesized separability of, and correlations among, the four confidence-related constructs. The extent to which the constructs independently explained the observed variance in confidence in the courts differed as a function of the specific operationalization of confidence in the courts and the individual predictor measures. Implications for measuring institutional confidence and future research directions are discussed