Understanding the interplay of persons, situations, and behavior (the Personality Triad) is a key task of psychology. However, previous research has largely focused on Western samples. We examined the Personality Triad across cultures with N = 15,221 participants from 61 countries and one geographic region. Participants reported on one situation from their daily lives. We examined (1) situation characteristic–behavioral state, (2) trait–behavioral state, and (3) trait–situation characteristic associations, as well as (4) trait × situation characteristic interactions predicting behavioral states. We focused on six traits (Big Five, Honesty-Humility), seven situation characteristics (Duty, Intellect, Adversity, Mating, pOsitivity, Negativity, Sociality), and three self-reported behavioral states (Agency, Enthusiasm, Self-Negativity). Importantly, we included 15 country-level variables (collectivism, self-construal, cultural value orientations, tightness, independent and interdependent happiness, national socioeconomic status) as moderators that might contribute to country differences in the Personality Triad. Bayesian multilevel models showed sizable and expected situation characteristic–behavioral state and trait–behavioral state associations with a high degree of generalization across countries, some cultural differences, and moderator effects contradicting theoretical expectations. For instance, we found weaker situation characteristic effects in collectivistic cultures and stronger trait effects in embedded cultures. Trait–situation characteristic associations were meaningful but smaller, and trait × situation characteristic interactions were small and less often significant (although we observed some expected interactions). We found little evidence for country differences in the latter two relations. We discuss implications and future directions for cross-cultural work on the Personality Triad, including replications and extensions using intensive-longitudinal designs.

The distinction between nomothetics and idiographics (and adjacent issues such as heterogeneities, generalizability, and ergodicity) is fundamental to a deeper understanding of personality-related phenomena and any psychological structures and processes in general. Thus, ignoring nomothetics and idiographics threatens the validity of inferences in personality and psychological science. As fruits from an EAPP-funded expert meeting, three articles (Phan et al., Kuper et al., and Modersitzki et al.) provide systematic accounts of nomothetics and idiographics from conceptual, methodological, and applied perspectives. Together, this tripartite article collection argues that nomothetics and idiographics (a) are each multi-faceted (i.e., are not uniform), (b) require nuanced interpretation and precise terminology, and (c) do not stand in opposition to each other but can be complementary and fruitfully integrated to enrich our understanding of psychological phenomena. In this mantle article, we explicate guiding motivations for addressing nomothetics and idiographics in the first place, provide more context and history on the issues involved, introduce and summarize main take-aways from the three articles, and conclude with a view on bigger picture issues and suggestions on ways forward. We also introduce and invite to join the recently founded Personality Consortium on Research in Idiographics and Nomothetics (PECORINO).

While trait measures are often structured in an intercorrelation grouping approach (IGA) based on their covariations, we propose a nomological grouping approach (NGA) that bases structure on nomological similarities. The NGA is demonstrated with 15 BFI-2 facets and 96 different nomologicals, using LISS panel data. We subjected four facets × nomologicals matrices to factor analyses: unpartialized (UP), hetero-domain partialized (HDP: variance controlled from facets of other domains), auto-domain partialized (ADP: variance controlled from facets of the same domain), and fully partialized (FP: variance controlled from all other facets). The UP matrix yielded a well-interpretable 3-factor solution and the HDP matrix a 5-factor solution (essentially the Big Five), while the ADP and FP matrices did not yield sensible factor structures. Using Procrustes rotations, the UP solution, but not the ADP and FP solutions, could be coerced into a Big Five solution. Some, but not all, NGA factor solutions were similar to IGA factor solutions. Taken together, facets of the same domain cohered based on highly similar nomological networks, but removing shared variance in BFI-2 facets dissolved their nomological similarities. We discuss the NGA as a framework for establishing taxonomies or conducting psychometric analyses.

What is published in personality psychology, and which trends emerge over time? We examined in six major personality-psychological journals (European Journal of Personality, Journal of Individual Differences, Journal of Personality, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Personality Processes and Individual Differences, Journal of Research in Personality, and Personality and Individual Differences) what content-as captured by keywords attached to journal articles (14,227 full articles, with 23,900 unique keywords that attracted a total of 62,578 mentions)-was featured in the first 2 decades of the new millennium (years 2000-2021). From 406 consolidated keywords that received 20 or more mentions across all years and journals (capturing a large portion of the literature and hence reasonably representative), we identified 44 keyword-topics, grouped into nine keyword-domains (from most to least mentioned): (Mal-)Adjustment, Basic Dispositions, Characteristic Adaptations & Narratives, Modalities, Other, Socio-Cultural, Methodology, Stability/Change, and Biological. The top 5 most mentioned keyword-topics were "B5 Constructs," "Emotion," "Internalizing," "Health/Well-being," and "Dark Tetrad," and the top 5 most mentioned keywords were personality, big five, narcissism, sex differences, and depression. We also examined co-occurrences, rank-order stabilities, trajectorial trends, and associations with citations for keywords, keyword-topics, and keyword-domains as well as similarities between the sampled journals. We cast a descriptive and systematic portrait of contemporary published personality-psychological content, contrast those insights with earlier accounts of trends in personality psychology, and venture predictions for the future. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Machiavellianism (Mach) is a personality trait characterized by cold rationality, cynicism, duplicity, and the strategic and egotistical pursuit of goals. Despite recent advances in the measurement of Mach, most Mach scales show limited content validity because they have not systematically integrated recurring Mach themes in the areas of affect (A), behavior (B), cognition (C), and desire (D). To overcome this and other issues, we developed a new Mach scale, the M4. We created the M4 by using Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) to select 16 items from a pool of 92 newly generated and expert-rated Mach items. In two studies with German-speaking participants (N1 = 765; N2 = 1,288), the M4 total score showed high reliability and high convergent validity with established Mach scales and M4 informant reports. Furthermore, the nomological network of the M4 aligned in several respects with the theoretical conceptualization of Mach. However, some unexpected associations suggested the need to refine the conceptualization of Mach regarding its relationship with certain forms of impulsivity and neuroticism. Commonality analyses further indicated that the M4 predicted incentivized cheating behavior better than five other recently developed Mach measures. Hence, the M4 holds promise for advancing the assessment of Mach.

Individuals differ considerably in their social behaviour. Recently, various behavioural sciences have begun to acknowledge the systematic nature and high relevance of this individuality – but approaches from different disciplines are currently isolated from each other. We propose an integrative, interdisciplinary approach for a more comprehensive understanding of individuality in social behaviour, considering: (1) features (What kinds of individual differences exist?), (2) sources (How do these differences emerge within individuals’ social environments?), and (3) outcomes (What are the consequences of these differences, and how can relevant outcomes be changed through tailored interventions?). We highlight common insights across disciplines, key challenges stemming from discipline-specific approaches, and novel potentials enabled through the interdisciplinary approach. By allowing comparative analyses across species, groups of individuals, and contexts, our approach promises to uncover the shared and unique nature of individuality in human social behaviour. We offer concrete recommendations to guide the implementation of the interdisciplinary approach.

Psychology is concerned with both general laws of psychological functioning and with the individual person. The debate surrounding nomothetics and idiographics has been brought up repeatedly, but it has never been completely resolved. We therefore aim to provide conceptual clarity on how the terms "idiographic" and "nomothetic" are used and how conflating these with other concepts negatively impacts research. By differentiating distinct inferential goals and research approaches, we disentangle these confounding concepts. We demonstrate that the nomothetic-idiographic distinction alone is insufficient for categorizing research approaches in personality science. Specifically, we present a categorization of research approaches based on (a) the focal entity (person(s) versus population(s)) and (b) the type of generalization (no vs. entity-specific vs. cross-entity) resulting in a 2 x 3 matrix of research approaches. Finally, we propose a framework of 25 polytomous criteria to extend upon these distinctions. This framework can be mapped onto the generic empirical research process and may help researchers to make decisions in the research process more explicit.

Research on person-situation dynamics has mostly focused on only the person or the situation in isolation in the prediction of outcomes and has relied on single rating sources. The current work examined simultaneously the effects of personality traits, personality states, situation characteristics, and trait × state as well as trait × situation interactions on teachers’ job performance using self-ratings and two types of other ratings. Twice daily during a 13- or 14-day experience sampling study, teachers’ personality states, situation characteristics, and job performance were rated by N = 173 teachers, N = 98 supervisors, and N = 1,295 students (69 classes). Results demonstrated main effects of personality traits, personality states, and situation characteristics on momentary job performance, with meaningful alignments between significant predictors (e.g., Extraversion and Positivity). With only one exception, no statistically significant interactions were found. Overall, these findings highlight that both personality and situation characteristics uniquely predict teaching performance.

Common reductionist contractions in thinking or writing about personality and individual differences are to conflate personality, dispositional traits, the Big Five, and self-reports. To avoid conceptual confusions and communicate more effectively, we should bear in mind: (a) Personality is much more than dispositional traits or basic tendencies, (b) basic tendencies are more than just Big Five traits, and (c) self-reports of traits—which capture explicit self-concepts—are just one out of many approaches to trait measurement. These distinctions should be reflected in our thinking, writing, and communication. Attending to them can help clarify what has been studied and (re-)contextualize our knowledge bases. Personality psychology is a science, and scientific language must be accurate, precise, and nuanced.

Consistencies in how and what a person thinks, feels, enacts, and wants (i.e., momentary states) lie at the core of personality definitions and thus at the heart of personality psychology. Unfortunately, the systematic conceptualization and examination of state consistencies has stagnated after the person-situation debate. Moreover, past research has predominantly focused on consistencies of individual differences, neglecting consistencies that play out in the life of the individual. While the study of between-person consistencies provides evidence for the existence of personality characteristics, we argue that person- specific within-person consistencies are necessary to draw inferences about a person’s individuality. To reignite the examination of individual-level state consistencies, we present a framework of basic person-specific consistency types. For the proposed consistencies, we provide examples, discuss their interpretation and relevance, and relate them to prominent theoretical accounts within personality psychology. We conclude with advocating for a stronger focus on person-specific approaches and individuality.

Objective Several personality theories distinguish between rather genetically rooted, universal dispositional traits (DTs) and rather environmentally shaped, more contextualized characteristic adaptations (CAs). However, no study so far has compared different measures of theoretically postulated DTs and CAs regarding their environmental and genetic components while considering differences in measurement abstraction and reliability. This study aims to bridge this gap by testing the assumed differences in the sensitivity to environmental influences based on representative sets of DTs (Big Five and HEXACO domains and facets) and CAs (goals, interests, value priorities, religiousness, and self-schemas). Method Using intra-class correlations and running extended twin family and spouses-of-twins model analyses, we analyzed a large data set (N = 1967) encompassing 636 twin pairs, 787 parent-offspring dyads, and 325 spouses/partners. Results Findings consistently support lower environmentality of DTs compared to CAs. On average, more than half of reliable variance in DTs was genetic, whereas the reverse was found for CAs. Larger environmental components in CAs were primarily attributable to larger individual-specific effects (beyond error of measurement) and factors shared by spouses. Conclusions Findings are discussed against the background of the definitional distinction between DTs and CAs and the value of extended twin family data.

Psychological researchers often identify with psychological disciplines, such as social or clinical psychology. The current study analyzed Google Scholar profiles from 6,532 international scientists who attracted more than 100 citations in 2019 and self-identified with at least one of 10 common psychological disciplines (psychoanalysis; clinical psychology; (cognitive) neuroscience; developmental psychology; educational psychology; experimental psychology; biological psychology/psychophysiology; mathematical psychology/psychometrics; social psychology; personality psychology). Results indicated that almost half of all psychologists self-identified with either social psychology or cognitive neuroscience. There were 487 topics that were endorsed at least five times, ranging from highly discipline-specific topics to more integrative ones, such as emotion and personality. We also factor-analyzed frequencies of topical endorsement across disciplines and found two factors, which we interpreted as reflecting correlational and experimental research traditions (with social psychology being the largest discipline within the former tradition and cognitive neuroscience being the largest discipline within the latter tradition). Differences in productivity and impact were also found, with researchers identifying with psychometrics being the most productive and researchers identifying with personality psychology, cognitive neuroscience, and multidisciplinary psychology as the most impactful in terms of citation increases per additional output. Recommendations for promoting cross-fertilization across psychological disciplines are formulated.

People differ in their reaction to situations, resulting in person × situation interactions. These interactions have been emphasized by many theoretical accounts of personality. Nevertheless, empirical progress on person × situation interactions has been slow. This is in part attributable to an insufficient distinction of person and situation variables and of different types of interaction effects. We propose a framework distinguishing four nested types of interaction effects varying in specificity: (1) P × S: broad person × situation interaction variance, (2) P × Sspec: between-person differences in situation variable–outcome associations, (3) Pspec × S: between-situation differences in person variable–outcome associations, and (4) Pspec × Sspec: specific person variable × situation variable interactions. We conducted two large online studies (N = 622 and N = 818) with standardized situation stimuli (N = 62 pictures and N = 62 first-person perspective videos) and assessed Big Five traits, DIAMONDS situation characteristics, and Big Five states. Using pre-registered multi-level models, we systematically quantified the different interaction types. We found (1) large person × situation interaction variance in personality states, (2) sizable individual differences in situation characteristic–state contingencies, (3) consistent but smaller between-situation differences in trait–state associations, and (4) some significant but (very) small personality trait × situation characteristic interactions. Our findings highlight person × situation interactions as potentially important predictors of psychological states, although the explanation of these interactions through specific person variables remains difficult. Individual differences in the reaction to situations should be incorporated into our models of personality.

The interplay between persons and situations is central to psychology, and there has been a recent increase in research on psychological situation characteristics. One key issue in situation research concerns the distinction between consensual situation perceptions and subjective situation construal. We examined for the first time whether different instructions can be used to shift the degree to which situation characteristic ratings reflect consensual (i.e., shared) versus subjective perceptions. N = 631 participants were randomly assigned to one of three instructions: standard (unspecified), personal (how participants personally perceive a situation), and consensual (how participants think most other people perceive a situation). Each participant rated 31 of 62 standardized situation stimuli (pictures of everyday life situations) on the DIAMONDS situation characteristics. Using Bayesian multilevel models, we found that (1) instructions did not affect inter-rater agreement, although residual variation was somewhat higher in the personal instruction; (2) averages of ratings did not differ across instructions; and (3) Big Five traits had significant but small effects on situation characteristic ratings, which did not differ across instructions. Our findings highlight that situation characteristic ratings behave very similarly across instructions, and we discuss conceptual and practical implications.

Fachgruppe Differentielle Psychologie, Persönlichkeitspsychologie und psychologische DiagnostikBerufungsverfahren unter einer diagnostischen Perspektive fundiert durchführenTuulia Ortner, André Kretzschmar, John F. Rauthmann, and Ana N. TibubosTuulia OrtnerUniv.-Prof. Dr. Mag. Tuulia Ortner, Abteilung Psychologische Diagnostik, Fachbereich Psychologie, Universität Salzburg, Hellbrunnerstraße 34, 5020 Salzburg, Österreich, [email protected]Fachbereich Psychologie, Universität Salzburg, ÖsterreichSearch for more papers by this author, André KretzschmarPsychologisches Institut, Universität Zürich, SchweizSearch for more papers by this author, John F. RauthmannDepartment Psychologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, DeutschlandSearch for more papers by this author, and Ana N. TibubosFachbereich Pflegewissenschaft, Universität Trier, DeutschlandSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:July 27, 2023https://doi.org/10.1026/0033-3042/a000638PDFView Full Text ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInReddit SectionsMoreLiteraturAbele-Brehm, A. E. & Bühner, M. (2016). : Überlegungen zur Optimierung von Berufungsverfahren in der Psychologie. Psychologische Rundschau, 67, 262 – 275. First citation in articleLink, Google ScholarArbeitskreis Assessment-Center e., V. (2004). Standards der Assessment-Center Technik 2004. Verfügbar unter: http://www.arbeitskreis-ac.de/index.php/component/content/article/41-standards/150-standards-der-assessment-center-technik-2004.html First citation in articleGoogle ScholarBrembs, B., Button, K. & Munafò, M. (2013). Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7. First citation in articleCrossref, Google ScholarDeutsches Institut für Normung. (2016). Anforderungen an berufsbezogene Eignungsdiagnostik (DIN 33430:2016 – 07). Berlin: Beuth-Verlag. First citation in articleGoogle ScholarElson, M., Fiedler, S., Kirsch, P. & Stahl, J. (2021). Verstösse gegen die wissenschaftliche Integrität in der deutschen akademischen Psychologie. Ergebnisse einer Umfrage des Ombudsgremiums der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie (DGPs). Verfügbar unter: https://www.dgps.de/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/Ombudsgremium/Bericht_des_DGPs-Ombudsgremiums_20210728.pdf , [09. 05. 2023] First citation in articleGoogle ScholarGeraci, L., Balsis, S. & Busch, A. J. B. (2015). Gender and the h index in psychology. Scientometrics, 105, 2023 – 2034. First citation in articleCrossref, Google ScholarLozano, G. A., Larivière, V. & Gingras, Y. (2012). The weakening relationship between the impact factor and papers’ citations in the digital age. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63, 2140 – 2145. First citation in articleCrossref, Google ScholarSimons, K. (2008). The Misused Impact Factor. Science, 322(5899), 165 – 165. First citation in articleCrossref, Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Diskussionsforum: Empfehlungen zur Bewertung wissenschaftlicher Leistungen bei Berufungsverfahren in der Psychologie Volume 74Issue 3Juli 2023 ISSN: 0033-3042eISSN: 2190-6238 History Licenses & Copyright© 2023Hogrefe VerlagPDF download

Person-situation fit can be operationalized as within-person associations between profiles of personality traits and situation characteristics ( trait-situation fit) as well as personality states and situation characteristics ( state-situation fit). We provide an initial examination of basic properties (magnitudes, individual differences, reliabilities, intercorrelations), short-term stability (across weeks), and nomological correlates of overall and distinctive profile-level person-situation fits. In a real-life, multi-method multi-occasion design ( N = 204–209), we obtained data on participants’ traits (self- and informant-reported) as well as, at four time-points from their everyday lives, on situation characteristics (self- and coder-reported) and states (self-reported). Profile scores ( q-correlations) were computed across 35 cognate items between the CAQ (traits), RSQ (situations), and RBQ (states). Our descriptive and exploratory findings indicated that trait-situation and state-situation fits were sizable (overall more so than distinctive forms), and that there were substantial individual differences, which were only modestly stable during a short period and had some plausible nomological correlates (i.e., lower depression and neuroticism, but higher psychological well-being and happiness) that were driven mainly by normativity. Most findings replicated across measurement sources (self- vs. other-reports). Person-situation fit concepts, once further corroborated, could further personality-psychological research.

There is robust evidence that people with higher incomes tend to have higher self-esteem, but little is known about how changes in income and self-esteem are related within individuals. Some theories predict that increased earnings lead to higher self-esteem, others that increased self-esteem leads to higher earnings, and still others that there should be no within-person associations between these variables. We tested these theories in 4-year longitudinal data from more than 4,000 adult participants from a Dutch representative sample. Results indicated significant between-person associations between income and self-esteem, consistent with prior research. Within-person effects suggested that increases in self-esteem are a function of previous increases in income more than the other way around. These links held when analyses controlled for employment status, and they generalized across gender, age, and educational background. Overall, the findings provide evidence for theories that consider self-esteem as both a source and a consequence of personal earnings.

With the rapidly growing availability of scalable psychological assessments, personality science holds great promise for the scientific study and applied use of customized behavior-change interventions. To facilitate this development, we propose a classification system that divides psychological targeting into two approaches that differ in the process by which interventions are designed: audience-to-content matching or content-to-audience matching. This system is both integrative and generative: It allows us to (a) integrate existing research on personalized interventions from different psychological subdisciplines (e.g., political, educational, organizational, consumer, and clinical and health psychology) and to (b) articulate open questions that generate promising new avenues for future research. Our objective is to infuse personality science into intervention research and encourage cross-disciplinary collaborations within and outside of psychology. To ensure the development of personality-customized interventions aligns with the broader interests of individuals (and society at large), we also address important ethical considerations for the use of psychological targeting (e.g., privacy, self-determination, and equity) and offer concrete guidelines for researchers and practitioners.