Explaining the Longitudinal Interplay of Personality and Social Relationships in the Laboratory and in the Field: The PILS and the CONNECT Study

Geukes, Katharina; Breil, Simon Mats; Hutteman, Roos; Nestler, Steffen; Küfner, Albrecht C. P.; Back, Mitja D.

doi:10.31234/osf.io/gnbm8

Cited by 22 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 118 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A detailed description of the three studies and of the applied measurements is provided in Supplemental Material I. The samples used include (a) a study conducted at Utrecht University, The Netherlands (Sample A, see "Study 2" in Dufner et al, 2012; see also Selfhout, Denissen, Branje, and Meeus, 2009), where the relevant variables were assessed in 188 psychology students (157 female; ages ranged from 17 to 31, M age = 18.89, SD age = 1.67) in online questionnaires and round robin ratings at three waves (T1 in the second week of the first semester, T2 4 months after T1, T3 8 months after T1), (b) a study conducted at the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany (Sample B, see Geukes et al, 2016), where the variables of interest were assessed in 295 students (162 female; ages ranged from 18 to 39, In each study, we assessed objectively measured reasoning ability with a shortened 15-item version (see Denissen, Schönbrodt, van Zalk, Meeus, & van Aken, 2011) of Raven's advanced progressive matrices (Raven, Raven, & Court, 1962), used one self-report item to assess self-rated reasoning ability, and applied various instruments to assess up to five self-and peer-rated outcome variables (peer-rated trustworthiness was not assessed in Sample A). In all studies, we removed subjects who had missing values on the ability test, self-viewed ability, or on every outcome variable, but no other data were excluded.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preprint of "Enhanced Versus Simply Positive: A New Condition-Based Regression Analysis to Disentangle Effects of Self-Enhancement from Effects of Positivity of Self-View"

Humberg¹,

Dufner²,

Schönbrodt³

et al. 2016

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite a large body of literature and ongoing refinements of analytical techniques, research on the consequences of self-enhancement (SE) is still vague about how to define SE effects, and empirical results are inconsistent. In this paper, we point out that part of this confusion is due to a lack of conceptual and methodological differentiation between effects of individual differences in how much people enhance themselves (SE) and in how positively they view themselves (positivity of self-view; PSV). We show that methods commonly used to analyze SE effects are biased because they cannot differentiate between the effects of PSV and the effects of SE. We provide a new condition-based regression analysis (CRA) that unequivocally identifies effects of SE by testing intuitive and mathematically derived conditions on the coefficients in a bivariate linear regression. Using data from three studies on intellectual SE (total N = 566), we then illustrate that the CRA provides novel results as compared with traditional methods. Results suggest that many previously identified SE effects are in fact effects of PSV alone. The new CRA approach thus provides a clear and unbiased understanding of the consequences of SE. It can be applied to all conceptualizations of SE and, more generally, to every context in which the effects of the discrepancy between two variables on a third variable are examined.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preprint of "Enhanced Versus Simply Positive: A New Condition-Based Regression Analysis to Disentangle Effects of Self-Enhancement from Effects of Positivity of Self-View"

Humberg¹,

Dufner²,

Schönbrodt³

et al. 2016

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We used data from five studies (see also with four to six participants per group. In Sample C (Connect study; see Geukes, Breil, et al, 2017; see also osf.io/2pmcr), Sample E (Self-Insight study; Dufner, Arslan, Hagemeyer, Schönbrodt, & Denissen, 2015) was assessed at the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany. The relevant variables were assessed in N = 202 (134 female, Mage = 27.41, SDage = 2.96) students in two waves of data collection (approximately 14 months apart) in which they filled out online questionnaires, participated in a laboratory session, provided daily diary assessments for a period of 14 days, and invited at least three informants to provide peer ratings.…”

Section: Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Self-rated agentic outcomes: group influence Self-rated communal outcomes: None. Peer-rated agentic outcomes: reasoning ability, group influence Peer-rated communal outcomes: liking, friendship quality, emotional support B PILS study by Geukes, Breil, et al (2017); N = 295 (162 f.); Age 18 to 39 (M = 23.8, SD = 3.95)…”

Section: Footnotesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Self-rated agentic outcomes: trust in one's own abilities, leadership ability Self-rated communal outcomes: friendship potential, trustworthiness Peer-rated agentic outcomes: leadership ability, intelligence Peer-rated communal outcomes: friendship potential, liking, trustworthiness C Connect study by Geukes, Breil, et al (2017); N = 91 (74 f.); Age 18 to 42 (M = 20.6, SD = 3.38)…”

Section: Footnotesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The relevant variables were assessed in N = 188 psychology students (157 female; Mage = 18.89, SDage = 1.67) using online questionnaires and round-robin ratings in three waves (T1 in the second week of the first semester, T2 four months after T1, T3 eight months after T1). Sample B (PILS study; seeGeukes, Breil, et al, 2017; see also osf.io/q5zwp) took place at the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany. The variables of interest were assessed in N = 295 students (162 female; Mage = 23.8, SDage = 3.95) in online questionnaires and in three laboratory group sessions (spaced exactly 1 week apart)…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Preprint of "Is Accurate, Positive, or Inflated Self-Perception Most Advantageous for Psychological Adjustment? A Competitive Test of Key Hypotheses"

Humberg¹,

Dufner²,

Schönbrodt³

et al. 2018

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Empirical research on the (mal-)adaptiveness of favorable self-perceptions, self-enhancement, and self-knowledge has typically applied a classical null-hypothesis testing approach and provided mixed and even contradictory findings. Using data from five studies (laboratory and field, total N = 2,823), we employed an information-theoretic approach combined with Response Surface Analysis to provide the first competitive test of six popular hypotheses: that more favorable self-perceptions are adaptive versus maladaptive (Hypotheses 1 and 2: Positivity of self-view hypotheses), that higher levels of self-enhancement (i.e., a higher discrepancy of self-viewed and objectively assessed ability) are adaptive versus maladaptive (Hypotheses 3 and 4: Self-enhancement hypotheses), that accurate self-perceptions are adaptive (Hypothesis 5: Self-knowledge hypothesis), and that a slight degree of self-enhancement is adaptive (Hypothesis 6: Optimal margin hypothesis). We considered self-perceptions and objective ability measures in two content domains (reasoning ability, vocabulary knowledge) and investigated six indicators of intra- and interpersonal psychological adjustment. Results showed that most adjustment indicators were best predicted by the positivity of self-perceptions, there were some specific self-enhancement effects, and evidence generally spoke against the self-knowledge and optimal margin hypotheses. Our results highlight the need for comprehensive simultaneous tests of competing hypotheses. Implications for the understanding of underlying processes are discussed.Humberg, S., Dufner, M., Schönbrodt, F. D., Geukes, K., Hutteman, R., Küfner, A. C. P., van Zalk, M. H. W., Denissen, J. J. A., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (2019). Is accurate, positive, or inflated self-perception most advantageous for psychological adjustment? A competitive test of key hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(5), 835–859. doi:10.1037/pspp0000204

show abstract

Longitudinal Experience–Wide Association Studies—A Framework for Studying Personality Change

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The importance of personality for predicting life outcomes in the domains of love, work, and health is well established, as is evidence that personality traits, while relatively stable, can change. However, little is known about the sources and processes that drive changes in personality traits and how such changes might impact important life outcomes. In this paper, we make the case that the research paradigms and methodological approaches commonly used in personality psychology need to be revised to advance our understanding of the sources and processes of personality change. We propose Longitudinal Experience‐Wide Association Studies as a framework for studying personality change that can address the limitations of current methods, and we discuss strategies for overcoming some of the challenges associated with Longitudinal Experience‐Wide Association Studies. © 2020 European Association of Personality Psychology

show abstract

Explaining the Longitudinal Interplay of Personality and Social Relationships in the Laboratory and in the Field: The PILS and the CONNECT Study

Cited by 22 publications

References 118 publications

Preprint of "Enhanced Versus Simply Positive: A New Condition-Based Regression Analysis to Disentangle Effects of Self-Enhancement from Effects of Positivity of Self-View"

Preprint of "Enhanced Versus Simply Positive: A New Condition-Based Regression Analysis to Disentangle Effects of Self-Enhancement from Effects of Positivity of Self-View"

Preprint of "Is Accurate, Positive, or Inflated Self-Perception Most Advantageous for Psychological Adjustment? A Competitive Test of Key Hypotheses"

Longitudinal Experience–Wide Association Studies—A Framework for Studying Personality Change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About