Search

Recent models of personality development have emphasized the role of the environment in terms of selection and socialization effects and their interaction. Our study provides partial evidence for these models and, crucially, extends these models by adding a person variable: Core beliefs, which are defined as mental representations of experiences that individuals have while pursuing need-fulfilling goals. Specifically, we report results from a longitudinal investigation of the development of trait greed across time. Based on data from the German Personality Panel, we analyzed data on 1,965 young adults on up to 4 occasions, spanning a period of more than 3 years. According to our results, negative core beliefs that have so far been proposed only in the clinical literature (e.g., being unloved or being insecure) contributed to the development of trait greed, indicating that striving for material goals might be a substitute for unmet needs in the past. Additionally, greedy individuals more often self-selected themselves into business-related environments, which presumably allow them to fulfill their greed-related need to earn a lot of money. Our results expose important mechanisms for trait greed development. Regarding personality development in general, core beliefs were identified as an important variable for future theory building. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In response to recent calls to incorporate Implicit Trait Policies (ITPs) into personality research, the current study examined the construct-related validity of ITP measures. ITPs are defined as implicit beliefs about the effectiveness of behaviors that reflect a certain trait. They are assessed by utilizing the methodology of Situational Judgment Tests. We empirically examined (N = 339) several underlying key assumptions of ITP theory, including trait-specificity, the relation to personality traits, their context-independence, and the relation to general domain knowledge. Overall, our results showed little support for these assumptions. Although we found some confirmation for expected correlations between ITPs and personality traits, most of the observed variance in ITP measures was either method-specific or due to measurement error. We conclude that the herein examined ITP measures lack construct-related validity and discuss implications for ITP theory and assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We echo Lievens's call to incorporate measures developed in applied settings as valuable instruments for personality researchers. We highlight some striking findings that have challenged central assumptions about these measures and call for joint research efforts of personality and industrial and organizational psychologists to gain better understanding of what these methods actually measure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]