Why has personality psychology played an outsized role in the credibility revolution?

Abstract

Personality is not the most popular subfield of psychology. But, in one way or another, personality psychologists have played an outsized role in the ongoing “credibility revolution” in psychology. Not only have individual personality psychologists taken on visible roles in the movement, but our field’s practices and norms have now become models for other fields to emulate (or, for those who share Baumeister’s (2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.02.003) skeptical view of the consequences of increasing rigor, a model for what to avoid). In this article we discuss some unique features of our field that may have placed us in an ideal position to be leaders in this movement. We do so from a subjective perspective, describing our impressions and opinions about possible explanations for personality psychology’s disproportionate role in the credibility revolution. We also discuss some ways in which personality psychology remains less-than-optimal, and how we can address these flaws.

Practical recommendations for considering culture, race, and ethnicity in personality psychology

“…For example, the Personality Development Collaborative (https://www.personalitydevelopmentcollaborative.org/) is a tool for researchers that allows one to share and use existing longitudinal data to study personality development. There are also additional panel datasets that allow for the examination of personality using non-Western samples (Atherton et al, 2021), for example, the Survey of Midlife Development in Japan (Markus et al, 2009(Markus et al, -2010, the Indonesian Family Life Study (RAND, 1993), the Chinese Family Panel Study (Institute of Social Science Survey, 2015), and the Korean Longitudinal Survey of Women and Families (Joo, 2007(Joo, -2016. These resources provide opportunities to those without access to diverse samples or funding to incorporate a consideration of culture, race, and ethnicity, in their work.…”

“…It is important to note that this is an issue related to race within a country, and that issues related to representation across countries may present themselves differently (e.g., van de Vijver, 2013). While personality psychology has been at the forefront of the credibility revolution (Atherton et al, 2021), the relative lack of regard for culture, race, and ethnicity within the field is an issue for replicability as well. The ways in which researchers recruit and study individuals should ensure findings can be generalizable because generalizability influences the perceived impact and credibility of the research (Cheon et al, 2020;Simons et al, 2017).…”

“…In a recent commentary, Atherton et al (2021) reported a search of the 50 most cited articles that use personality as a keyword, and the results showed that studies used samples predominantly composed of American undergraduate students, and were authored almost entirely by individuals in the Western world. These results suggest that researchers in personality psychology should orient themselves toward more meaningfully addressing culture in their work by conducting and prioritizing work that uses non-Western samples.…”

Open peer commentaries to Leising et al., Ten steps toward a better personality science: How quality may be rewarded more in research evaluation

“…This commentary is meant as an illustration of how relying on consensus for evaluat ing "quality" could lead to perpetuated inequality. The past and (to a somewhat lesser degree) current climates have been rather non-inclusive in personality science (Atherton et al, 2021), which likely led to values upheld by a small group being privileged. From any other perspective than a post-positivist one, these omissions are problematic.…”

The Next Chapter at PSPR

“…And focusing on these issues is absolutely urgent—no less urgent than the shift toward open science—so, alongside an emphasis on how , what , who , and why , the when has to be now . I am not the first person to assert this, and I am happy to join the chorus of others calling for change (see Atherton et al, 2021; Buchanan et al, in press; Cheek, 2017; Funder et al, 2014; Ledgerwood et al, in press; Murphy et al, 2020; Plaut, 2010; S. O. Roberts et al, 2020; Spellman, 2015; Syed, 2021; Syed & McLean, in press; Thalmayer et al, 2021; Winston, 2020, as just a handful of examples of others issuing similar calls).…”