PERSOC: A Unified Framework for Understanding the Dynamic Interplay of Personality and Social Relationships

Abstract

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.

Processes of Personality Development in Adulthood: The TESSERA Framework

“…Finally, the TESSERA framework leads to novel insights into existing developmental phenomena, which were not addressed in previous theories (e.g., Back, Baumert, et al, 2011;Hennecke et al, 2014;Mischel & Shoda, 1995;, such as why correlated change among Big Five traits and motivational orientations differ and why different patterns of personality continuity and change are observed across the adult life span. In addition to normative patterns of personality development due to normative life transitions with similar situations and expectancies Neyer et al, 2014), individual differences in the strength and direction of development can be explained through differences in personal or environmental factors that affect the TESSERA components.…”

“…In contrast, associative processes (i.e., the number of state repetitions together with reactions) should predict changes in implicit representations and these changes should be stronger when compared with explicit representations. Previous theories predicted that repeated states predict personality trait development (Back, Baumert, et al, 2011;Mischel & Shoda, 1995;Roberts, 2006Roberts, , 2009, hence did not specify associative and reflective processes and did not distinguish development of implicit, behavioral, and explicit trait manifestations. • • Substantial personality change can occur in middle and late adulthood, if (a) enough "opportunities" to experience new situations exist (e.g., life experiences typically experienced during young adulthood, entering the work force), (b) more repetitions occur to elicit changes in implicit associations compared with young adulthood, and (c) novel states are reflected as novel instead of personality-congruent like during identity confirmation.…”

“…Before other individuals can recognize and react upon thoughts and feelings, they have to be expressed in overt behavior (e.g., words, facial expressions, actions; Back, Baumert, et al, 2011;Mischel & Shoda, 1995).…”

“…Thus, multiple specific experiences add to a person's characteristics like tesserae, little stone pieces, to a mosaic. The general proposition that personality development occurs as a result of daily experiences that cumulate over time has recently gained attention (Back, Baumert, et al, 2011;Hennecke, Bleidorn, Denissen, & Wood, 2014;Roberts, 2006Roberts, , 2009). Yet, previous work largely focused primarily on personality states, and did not detail the processes through which repeated specific experiences contribute to the development of personality characteristics measurable with self-reports, other-reports, or behavioral observation.…”

An integrative lens model approach to bias and accuracy in human inferences: Hindsight effects and knowledge updating in personality judgments.

“…Thus, similar to Study 1, participants who exhibited a stronger hindsight bias also showed a stronger increase in their usage of more valid cues. used approach for gathering zero-acquaintance judgments, it is limited because it does not represent the natural stream of behaviors (Back, Baumert, et al, 2011;Baumeister, Vohs, & Funder, 2007) that one typically observes. Thus, other situational contexts (e.g., videos of targets, actual interactions), will have to be examined in future studies.…”