Estimating the Associations between Big Five Personality Traits, Testosterone, and Cortisol

OBJECTIVE: Hormones are often conceptualized as biological markers of individual differences and have been associated with a variety of behavioral indicators and characteristics, such as mating behavior or acquiring and maintaining dominance. However, before researchers create strong theoretical models for how hormones modulate individual and social behavior, information on how hormones are associated with dominant models of personality is needed. Although there have been some studies attempting to quantify the associations between personality traits, testosterone, and cortisol, there are many inconsistencies across these studies. METHODS: In this registered report, we examined associations between testosterone, cortisol, and Big Five personality traits. We aggregated 25 separate samples to yield a single sample of 3964 (50.3% women; 27.7% of women were on hormonal contraceptives). Participants completed measures of personality and provided saliva samples for testosterone and cortisol assays. RESULTS: The results from multi-level models and meta-analyses revealed mostly weak, non-significant associations between testosterone or cortisol and personality traits. The few significant effects were still very small in magnitude (e.g., testosterone and conscientiousness: r = −0.05). A series of moderation tests revealed that hormone-personality associations were mostly similar in men and women, those using hormonal contraceptives or not, and regardless of the interaction between testosterone and cortisol (i.e., a variant of the dual-hormone hypothesis). CONCLUSIONS: Altogether, we did not detect many robust associations between Big Five personality traits and testosterone or cortisol. The findings are discussed in the context of biological models of personality and the utility of examining heterogeneity in hormone-personality associations

Well-being as a Function of Person-Country Fit in Human Values

It is often assumed that incongruence between individuals’ values and those of their country is distressing, but the evidence has been mixed. Across 29 countries, the present research investigated whether well-being is higher if people’s values match with those of people living in the same country or region. Using representative samples, we find that person-country and person-region value congruence predict six well-being measures (e.g., emotional well-being, relationship support; N = 54,673). Crucially, however, value type moderates whether person-country fit is positively or negatively associated with well-being. People who value self-direction, stimulation, and hedonism more and live in countries and regions where people on average share these values report lower well-being. In contrast, people who value achievement, power, and security more and live in countries and regions where people on average share these values, report higher well-being. Additionally, we find that people who moderately value stimulation report the highest well-being

A global experiment on motivating social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic

Significance Communicating in ways that motivate engagement in social distancing remains a critical global public health priority during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study tested motivational qualities of messages about social distancing (those that promoted choice and agency vs. those that were forceful and shaming) in 25,718 people in 89 countries. The autonomy-supportive message decreased feelings of defying social distancing recommendations relative to the controlling message, and the controlling message increased controlled motivation, a less effective form of motivation, relative to no message. Message type did not impact intentions to socially distance, but people’s existing motivations were related to intentions. Findings were generalizable across a geographically diverse sample and may inform public health communication strategies in this and future global health emergencies. Abstract Finding communication strategies that effectively motivate social distancing continues to be a global public health priority during the COVID-19 pandemic. This cross-country, preregistered experiment (n = 25,718 from 89 countries) tested hypotheses concerning generalizable positive and negative outcomes of social distancing messages that promoted personal agency and reflective choices (i.e., an autonomy-supportive message) or were restrictive and shaming (i.e., a controlling message) compared with no message at all. Results partially supported experimental hypotheses in that the controlling message increased controlled motivation (a poorly internalized form of motivation relying on shame, guilt, and fear of social consequences) relative to no message. On the other hand, the autonomy-supportive message lowered feelings of defiance compared with the controlling message, but the controlling message did not differ from receiving no message at all. Unexpectedly, messages did not influence autonomous motivation (a highly internalized form of motivation relying on one’s core values) or behavioral intentions. Results supported hypothesized associations between people’s existing autonomous and controlled motivations and self-reported behavioral intentions to engage in social distancing. Controlled motivation was associated with more defiance and less long-term behavioral intention to engage in social distancing, whereas autonomous motivation was associated with less defiance and more short- and long-term intentions to social distance. Overall, this work highlights the potential harm of using shaming and pressuring language in public health communication, with implications for the current and future global health challenges

We are safe but you are not: exploring comparative optimism and cyber bullying

Individuals tend to believe that when comparing themselves to others they are less vulnerable to potential risks. This is referred to as comparative optimism, whereby individuals believe that they are immune from negative experiences that can happen to others. The current study examined comparative optimism judgements for the likelihood of experiencing cyber bullying. Comparative optimism was examined in three age groups: older adolescents (n = 130, 57% female, Mage = 16.82, SDage = .38), emerging adults (n = 355, 92% female, Mage = 19.26, SDage = .27), and adults (n = 147, 66% female, Mage = 33.24, SDage = 9.77). All participants reported the likelihood that they, their friends, other students [forum users] younger than them, other students [forum users] their age, people older than them, and strangers would experience cyber bullying. Participants displayed an optimistic bias, reporting that they were less likely to experience cyber bullying than others. However, the relative risk of experiencing cyber bullying varied according to comparator group. Comparator groups that were socially close to the participants (e.g. friends) were generally rated as less likely to experience cyber bullying than socially distant comparator groups (e.g. strangers). Also, comparator groups that were younger than the participants were consistently judged to be most at risk of experiencing cyber bullying. Together, the findings have implications for the design of anti-cyber bullying interventions and campaigns to promote digital safety