ObjectivePersonality changes across the life span. Life events, such as marriage, becoming a parent, and retirement, have been proposed as facilitating personality growth via the adoption of novel social roles. However, empirical evidence linking life events with personality development is sparse. Most studies have relied on few assessments separated by long time intervals and have focused on a single life event. In contrast, the content of life is composed of small, recurrent experiences (e.g., getting sick or practicing a hobby), with relatively few major events (e.g., childbirth). Small, frequently experienced life events may play an important and overlooked role in personality development.MethodThe present study examined the extent to which 25 major and minor life events alter the trajectory of personality development in a large, frequently assessed sample (Nsample = 4904, Nassessments = 47,814, median retest interval = 35 days).ResultsUsing a flexible analytic strategy to accommodate the repeated occurrence of life events, we found that the trajectory of personality development shifted in response to a single occurrence of some major life events (e.g., divorce), and recurrent, “minor” life experiences (e.g., one's partner doing something special).ConclusionBoth stark role changes and frequently reinforced minor experiences can lead to personality change.
In previous survey studies using decision-making vignettes in which respondents rated and ranked the appropriateness of universally implementing one intervention for all relevant people (A), universally implementing another intervention (B), or conducting an experiment (or A/B test) to compare these interventions before implementing the superior one, we have found that people are often averse to the A/B test, even when they approve of implementing either of the interventions the experiment contains (Meyer et al., 2019, Heck et al., 2020). However, these vignettes did not say explicitly whether or not consent to the A/B test—or to universal imposition of either A or B, untested—would be obtained. In a preregistered analysis, when we asked respondents in four of our previous survey experiments to explain their ratings, 18% of those who rated the A/B test commented negatively on the apparent lack of consent, compared to fewer than 1% of participants who rated the A or B conditions offering the same objection (Meyer et al., 2019). Because implementing A and implementing B, collectively, entail imposing the same risks on people as conducting an A/B test, this contrast is puzzling. Moreover, pragmatic trials of the sort our vignettes describe are often not feasible to conduct with consent; as a result, IRBs often waive the default requirement of consent and ethicists have also argued that consent to research is not always required. Here, in three studies using previous materials, we test the effect on experiment aversion (Heck et al., 2020; cf. Mislavsky et al., 2019) and the A/B effect (Meyer et al., 2019) of stipulating that consent to the A/B test either will or will not be obtained. In both vignettes we test, we find that negative sentiments towards experiments persist even when it is explicitly stated that consent will be obtained. While these negative sentiments are substantially reduced when consent is present (compared to when consent is absent or not mentioned), significant experiment aversion and A/B effects remain: 29–31% of participants were averse to the experiment and 32–39% ranked it as the worst decision the agent could make—even when consent would be obtained from everyone involved in the A/B test and from no one involved in either policy imposition.
Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are essential for determining the safety and efficacy of healthcare interventions. However, both laypeople and clinicians often demonstrate experiment aversion: preferring to implement either of two interventions for everyone rather than comparing them to determine which is best. We studied whether clinician and layperson views of pragmatic RCTs for Covid-19 or other interventions became more positive early in the pandemic, which increased both the urgency and public discussion of RCTs. Methods: We conducted several survey studies with laypeople (total n=2,909) and two with clinicians (n=895; n=1,254) in 2020 and 2021. Participants read vignettes in which a hypothetical decision-maker who sought to improve health could choose to implement intervention A for all, implement intervention B for all, or experimentally compare A and B and implement the superior intervention. Participants rated and ranked the appropriateness of each decision. Results: Compared to our pre-pandemic results, we found no decrease in laypeople's aversion to non-Covid-19 experiments involving catheterization checklists and hypertension drugs. Nor were either laypeople or clinicians less averse to Covid-19 RCTs (concerning corticosteroid drugs, vaccines, intubation checklists, proning, school reopening, and mask protocols), on average. Across all vignettes and samples, levels of experiment aversion ranged from 28% to 57%, while levels of experiment appreciation (in which the RCT is rated higher than the participant's highest-rated intervention) ranged from only 6% to 35%. Conclusions: Advancing evidence-based medicine through pragmatic RCTs will require anticipating and addressing experiment aversion among both patients and healthcare professionals.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.