People’s self-perception biases often lead them to see themselves as better than the average person (a phenomenon known as self-enhancement). This bias varies across cultures, and variations are typically explained using cultural variables, such as individualism versus collectivism. We propose that socioeconomic differences among societies—specifically, relative levels of economic inequality—play an important but unrecognized role in how people evaluate themselves. Evidence for self- enhancement was found in 15 diverse nations, but the magnitude of the bias varied. Greater self-enhancement was found in societies with more income inequality, and income inequality predicted cross-cultural differences in self-enhancement better than did individualism/collectivism.These results indicate that macrosocial differences in the distribution of economic goods are linked to microsocial processes of perceiving the self

The alternative dimensional model for personality disorders characterizes the individual on pathological personality traits, which can be measured by the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). Our study focused on the psychometric properties of the Hungarian version of PID-5 in 239 psychiatric patients and 226 non-clinical participants. The distribution of gender, age, and educational level were the same in the two samples. In the clinical sample, we examined the assumed unidimensionality of the 25 facets. The results of the exploratory factor analysis for five factors indicated the supposed five-factor structure. The convergent validity was studied by correlations with Big Five Inventory. The PID-5 domains showed moderate or strong correlation with the domains of Big Five except for Psychoticism. The comparison of the clinical and non-clinical samples revealed that psychiatric patients had a higher score on all pathological facets and domains, except for the domain of Antagonism with all its related facets, and the facet of Risk Taking. As a whole, we recommend the use of the Hungarian version of the PID-5 in research and clinical practice.

No abstract

No abstract

The radical transformations in the former communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe (C&EE) have prompted a growing body of scholarship concerned to analyze both the dramatic decline and the de facto restructuring of research systems throughout the region, and future opportunities for rebuilding them. This paper provides some basic background information on how science and technology (S&T) were organized before the transformations, and the changes since. It then briefly indicates why the topic is important for the field of science and technology studies (S&TS), and describes some trends in the development of S&TS in and on C&EE, before introducing the individual contributions in this Special Issue.