How Replicable Are Links Between Personality Traits and Consequential Life Outcomes? The Life Outcomes of Personality Replication Project

Abstract

The Big Five personality traits have been linked to dozens of life outcomes. However, metascientific research has raised questions about the replicability of behavioral science. The Life Outcomes of Personality Replication (LOOPR) Project was therefore conducted to estimate the replicability of the personality-outcome literature. Specifically, I conducted preregistered, high-powered (median N = 1,504) replications of 78 previously published trait–outcome associations. Overall, 87% of the replication attempts were statistically significant in the expected direction. The replication effects were typically 77% as strong as the corresponding original effects, which represents a significant decline in effect size. The replicability of individual effects was predicted by the effect size and design of the original study, as well as the sample size and statistical power of the replication. These results indicate that the personality-outcome literature provides a reasonably accurate map of trait–outcome associations but also that it stands to benefit from efforts to improve replicability.

Global sex differences in personality: Replication with an open online dataset

“…As it has become apparent over the past few years, a multivariate perspective offers a strikingly different picture of sex differences and similarities, not just in personality but in domains such as mate preferences (Conroy‐Beam, Buss, Pham, & Shackelford, ) and occupational interests (Morris, ). An important research question that naturally lends itself to a multivariate approach is the extent to which sex differences in personality predict sex differences in life outcomes such as health, well‐being, and occupational choices (Soto, ). It is plausible that multivariate profiles will prove more predictive than individual traits, particularly if multiple aspects of personality interact in nonadditive ways to influence the relevant outcomes.…”

“…The latter is closer to the prevailing view in psychology, which embraces the “gender similarities hypothesis” that men and women are similar on most psychological variables (Hyde, , ). Personality has implications for a multitude of important life outcomes, from physical and mental health to occupational choices and work performance (Friedman & Kern, ; Kotov, Gamez, Schmidt, & Watson, ; Soto, ). Moreover, current ideas about the causes and effects of gender stereotypes are inevitably shaped by assumptions about the magnitude of sex differences across domains (e.g., Fiske, ; Haines, Deaux, & Lofaro, ; Hyde, Bigler, Joel, Tate, & van Anders, ; Zell, Strickhouser, Lane, & Teeter, ).…”

Promises and perils of experimentation: The mutual internal validity problem

“…Even if these processes are properly defined and quantified (i.e., good internal validity; a big assumption given the inherent subjectivity of psychological constructs), experiments sacrifice external and ecological validity for causal control. Unlike non-experimental research that tends to produce PROMISES AND PERILS OF EXPERIMENTATION 5 more generalizable and replicable results (e.g., personality ;Funder, 2001;Noftle & Robins, 2007;Soto, 2019), experiments are often not designed to generalize or resemble experiences in everyday life (e.g., priming manipulations). For example, experimental paradigms involving the Stroop task have no doubt provided extremely valuable insights into cognitive control (Shenhav, 2017;Shenhav, Botvinick, & Cohen, 2013); however, these control processes often poorly explain and predict real-world behaviors that are thought to draw on these processes (Eisenberg et al, 2019;Saunders, Milyavskaya, Etz, Randles, & Inzlicht, 2018).…”

“…It has developed reliable scales that measure potentially universal personality traits (e.g., Big-Five inventory; McCrae & Costa Jr, 1997), which have been linked to many different life outcomes (Noftle & Robins, 2007;Roberts, Kuncel, Shiner, Caspi, & Goldberg, 2007). Critically, many of these personality-outcome associations can be replicated (Soto, 2019), unlike experimental psychology effects (Camerer et al, 2018;Open Science Collaboration, 2015). We suggest personality psychology may be doing well not despite-but because of-its lack of experimentation.…”

Assessing Personality States: What to Consider when Constructing Personality State Measures

“…What is the construct being measured? Conscientiousness at trait level is a very wellresearched construct at the between-person level (Bogg & Roberts, 2004;Roberts, Chernyshenko, Stark, & Goldberg, 2005;Roberts, Jackson, Fayard, Edmonds, & Meints, 2009;Roberts, Lejuez, Krueger, Richards, & Hill, 2014;Soto, 2019;Watson, 2001) but also at the within-person level (Chapman & Goldberg, 2017;Church, Katigbak, Miramontes, del Prado, & Cabrera, 2007;Hudson et al, 2018;Hudson & Fraley, 2015;Jackson et al, 2010;Magidson et al, 2014). It is therefore not surprising to find many slightly varying definitions of the construct in the published literature.…”