In this target article, we argue that personality processes, personality structure, and personality development have to be understood and investigated in integrated ways in order to provide comprehensive responses to the key questions of personality psychology. The psychological processes and mechanisms that explain concrete behaviour in concrete situations should provide explanation for patterns of variation across situations and individuals, for development over time as well as for structures observed in intra-individual and inter-individual differences. Personality structures, defined as patterns of covariation in behaviour, including thoughts and feelings, are results of those processes in transaction with situational affordances and regularities. It cannot be presupposed that processes are organized in ways that directly correspond to the observed structure. Rather, it is an empirical question whether shared sets of processes are uniquely involved in shaping correlated behaviours, but not uncorrelated behaviours (what we term 'correspondence' throughout this paper), or whether more complex interactions of processes give rise to population-level patterns of covariation (termed 'emergence'). The paper is organized in three parts, with part I providing the main arguments, part II reviewing some of the past approaches at (partial) integration, and part III outlining conclusions of how future personality psychology should progress towards complete integration. Working definitions for the central terms are provided in the appendix.

This article investigates the psychometric properties of a self-report inventory for measuring individual differences in four components of justice sensitivity (JS): victim sensitivity, observer sensitivity, beneficiary sensitivity, and perpetrator sensitivity. A representative sample (N = 2510) was employed to (a) estimate the reliability of a newly developed perpetrator sensitivity scale, (b) test the factorial validity of this scale together with three previously developed scales (victim, observer, and beneficiary sensitivity), (c) estimate correlations between JS and demographic variables (gender, age, education, employment status, marital status, and residency in East versus West Germany), and (d) provide normative data for the computation of standard scores. A demographically heterogeneous convenience sample (N = 327) was used to locate the JS dimensions in the personality space of narrow facet factors. Results from confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated the factorial validity of the JS scales. Regression analyses with JS scales as criteria and personality facet scales as predictors suggested that JS cannot be reduced to combinations of personality facets. Demographic effects were small, explaining a maximum of 1.4% of JS variance. Women and East Germans were found to be more justice sensitive than men and West Germans, respectively. Victim sensitivity decreased with age; perpetrator sensitivity decreased with education. Taken together, our results corroborate the validity of the JS Inventory and contribute to a better psychological understanding of JS.

The interplay of personality and social relationships is as fascinating as it is complex and it pertains to a wide array of largely separate research domains. Here, we present an integrative and unified framework for analysing the complex dynamics of personality and social relationships (PERSOC). Basic principles and general processes on the individual and dyadic level are outlined to show how personality and social relationships influence each other and develop over time. PERSOC stresses the importance of social behaviours and interpersonal perceptions as mediating processes organized in social interaction units. The framework can be applied to diverse social relationships such as first encounters, short-term acquaintances, friendships, relationships between working group members, educational or therapeutic settings, romantic relationships and family relationships. It has important consequences for how we conceptualize, understand, and investigate personality and social relationships.

We argue that it is useful to distinguish between three key goals of personality science – description, prediction and explanation – and that attaining them often requires different priorities and methodological approaches. We put forward specific recommendations such as publishing findings with minimum a priori aggregation and exploring the limits of predictive models without being constrained by parsimony and intuitiveness but instead maximising out-of-sample predictive accuracy. We argue that naturally-occurring variance in many decontextualized and multi-determined constructs that interest personality scientists may not have individual causes, at least as this term is generally understood and in ways that are human-interpretable, never mind intervenable. If so, useful explanations are narratives that summarize many pieces of descriptive findings rather than models that target individual cause-effect associations. By meticulously studying specific and contextualized behaviours, thoughts, feelings and goals, however, individual causes of variance may ultimately be identifiable, although such causal explanations will likely be far more complex, phenomenon-specific and person-specific than anticipated thus far. Progress in all three areas – description, prediction, and explanation – requires higher-dimensional models than the currently-dominant “Big Few” and supplementing subjective trait-ratings with alternative sources of information such as informant-reports and behavioural measurements. Developing a new generation of psychometric tools thus provides many immediate research opportunities.