In your eyes only? Discrepancies and agreement between self- and other-reports of personality from age 14 to 29

Do others perceive the personality changes that take place between the ages of 14 and 29 in a similar fashion as the aging person him- or herself? This cross-sectional study analyzed age trajectories in self- versus other-reported Big Five personality traits and in self-other agreement in a sample of more than 10,000 individuals from the myPersonality Project. Results for self-reported personality showed maturation effects (increases in extraversion, conscientiousness, openness to experience, and emotional stability), and this pattern was generally also reflected in other-reports, albeit with discrepancies regarding timing and magnitude. Age differences found for extraversion were similar between the self- and other-reports, but the increase found in self-reported conscientiousness was delayed in other-reports, and the curvilinear increase found in self-reported openness was slightly steeper in other-reports. Only emotional stability showed a distinct mismatch with an increase in self-reports, but no significant age effect in other-reports. Both the self- and other-reports of agreeableness showed no significant age trends. The trait correlations between the self- and other-reports increased with age for emotional stability, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness; by contrast, agreement regarding extraversion remained stable. The profile correlations confirmed increases in self-other agreement with age. We suggest that these gains in agreement are a further manifestation of maturation. Taken together, our analyses generally show commonalities but also some divergences in age-associated mean level changes between self- and other-reports of the Big Five, as well as an age trend towards increasing self-other agreement

Future directions in personality, occupational and medical selection: myths, misunderstandings, measurement, and suggestions

This paper has two objectives: (1) presenting recent advances in the personality field concerning the conceptualization of personality arising from the dynamic interactions of behaviour, biology, context, and states, and (2) discussing the implications of these developments for medical selection. We start by presenting evidence that traits are not longer regarded as deterministic and stable. Instead, they are found to change across generations, the life span, and in response to environmental contingencies. Next, drawing on recent research (behavioural reaction norms and the density distribution model) we posit how the expression of trait relevant behaviour changes depending on the situation, such that personality reflects both stability and plasticity across situations. Thus there is an urgent need to explore how traits change as function of medical education. Third, we demystify that some traits are better than others showing that so-called “good” traits have a dark-side. Fourth, we show how these developments impact on how personality might be assessed, thereby presenting recent evidence on the use of contextualized personality measures, Situational Judgment Tests, other reports, and implicit measures. Throughout the paper, we outline the key implications of these developments for medical selection practices

Coherence between attentional and memory biases in sad and formerly depressed individuals

Item does not contain fulltextCognitive theories assume a uniform processing bias across different samples, but the empirical support for this claim is rather weak and inconsistent. Therefore, coherence between biases across different cognitive domains in a sample of 133 non-depressed (Study 1) and a sample of 266 formerly depressed individuals (Study 2) was examined. In both studies, individuals were selected after a successful sad mood induction procedure. A Dot Probe task, an Emotional Stroop task and a self-referential Incidental Learning and Free Recall task were administered to all participants. Principle component analyses indicated coherence between attentional and memory bias in non-depressed, while in formerly depressed individuals distinct components for attentional biases and for memory bias were uncovered. The data suggest that in formerly depressed individuals, self-referent processing during encoding may be related to memory bias, whereas in non-depressed individuals memory bias may be related to both attentional bias and self-referent processing.9 p

Capturing dynamics of biased attention: are new attention variability measures the way forward?

Background: New indices, calculated on data from the widely used Dot Probe Task, were recently proposed to capture variability in biased attention allocation. We observed that it remains unclear which data pattern is meant to be indicative of dynamic bias and thus to be captured by these indices. Moreover, we hypothesized that the new indices are sensitive to SD differences at the response time (RT) level in the absence of bias. Method: randomly generated datasets were analyzed to assess properties of the Attention Bias Variability (ABV) and Trial Level Bias Score (TL-BS) indices. Sensitivity to creating differences in 1)RT standard deviation, 2)mean RT, and 3)bias magnitude were assessed. In addition, two possible definitions of dynamic attention bias were explored by creating differences in 4) frequency of bias switching, and 5)bias magnitude in the presence of constant switching. Results: ABV and TL-BS indices were found highly sensitive to increasing SD at the response time level, insensitive to increasing bias, linearly sensitive to increasing bias magnitude in the presence of bias switches, and non-linearly sensitive to increasing the frequency of bias switches. The ABV index was also found responsive to increasing mean response times in the absence of bias. Conclusion: recently proposed DPT derived variability indices cannot uncouple measurement error from bias variability. Significant group differences may be observed even if there is no bias present in any individual dataset. This renders the new indices in their current form unfit for empirical purposes. Our discussion focuses on fostering debate and ideas for new research to validate the potentially very important notion of biased attention being dynamic