Search

We examined the incremental validity of character in predicting health outcomes and well-being beyond personality traits and investigated the extent to which health-related behaviors mediate the relationship between character and well-being. Findings indicate that several character cores (e.g., transcendence, fortitude) predict well-being, health behaviors, and health outcomes beyond different measures of personality traits, indicating that character is discriminable from personality as indicated by incremental prediction. In particular, fortitude, temperance, transcendence, and sincerity appear to be key players. Implications for character research are discussed.

Organizations are increasingly adopting automated video interviews (AVIs) to screen job applicants despite a paucity of research on their reliability, validity, and generalizability. In this study, we address this gap by developing AVIs that use verbal, paraverbal, and nonverbal behaviors extracted from video interviews to assess Big Five personality traits. We developed and validated machine learning models within (using nested cross-validation) and across three separate samples of mock video interviews (total N = 1,073). Also, we examined their test-retest reliability in a fourth sample ( N = 99). In general, we found that the AVI personality assessments exhibited stronger evidence of validity when they were trained on interviewer-reports rather than self-reports. When cross-validated in the other samples, AVI personality assessments trained on interviewer-reports had mixed evidence of reliability, exhibited consistent convergent and discriminant relations, used predictors that appear to be conceptually relevant to the focal traits, and predicted academic outcomes. On the other hand, there was little evidence of reliability or validity for the AVIs trained on self-reports. We discuss the implications for future work on AVIs and personality theory, and provide practical recommendations for the vendors marketing such approaches and organizations considering adopting them. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

A seemingly universal lesson is that anything taken to its extreme is detrimental. Indeed, there has been growing interest in testing this idea within psychology. These studies have often been framed in terms of Aristotle's doctrine of the golden mean or the idea that virtue lies between the vices of deficiency and excess. Recent explicit reviews of this hypothesis in the psychological literature have led to the paradoxical conclusion that one can have too much virtue (i.e., the too-much-of-a-good-thing effect) despite virtue being identified by the golden mean. We argue in this article that this conclusion is due to a reductionist account of virtues in psychology and the resultant measurement of virtues as general dispositional tendencies in behavior. We review philosophical theory on the golden mean to show that the relationship between virtue and relevant behavior is fundamentally about situation-specific optimality . Using schematic models, we contrast the former measurement approach against the latter to explain the too-much-of-a-good-thing effect and further demonstrate why virtues cannot be properly measured as general tendencies in behavior. We conclude with methodological implications of our theory-informed approach to virtue measurement for research design, evaluation, and conceptualization.

Research on humility has burgeoned. However, behavioral assessments of humility that do not rely on self-reports have developed much more slowly. The purpose of this paper is to take stock of existing approaches to conceptualize and measure humility. Specifically, we provide a conceptual overview of humility, including the limitations of current methodological approaches to studying humility and the need for behavioral assessments. In addition, we argue that behavioral assessments of humility may inform broader measures of virtues by considering both the relevance of and the degree to which actual behaviors pertaining to that virtue are expressed. Understanding the current conceptual and methodological limitations of approaches to humility will better situate research efforts aimed at catalyzing behavioral measures of humility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present research study sought to develop and validate a character scale - the Comprehensive Inventory of Virtuous Instantiations of Character using a total sample size of 3679 across five studies. In Study 1, character trait items were generated using an integrative classification system. In Study 2, character trait scales were further refined and their factor structure examined, revealing eight higher-order character dimensions or character cores: appreciation, intellectual engagement, fortitude, interpersonal consideration, sincerity, temperance, transcendence, and empathy. Study 3 established convergent validity of character traits with extant measures and discriminability from personality facets, social desirability, and moral cognitive development. Study 4 revealed that character cores were more strongly related to evaluative constructs than personality dimensions. Study 5 demonstrated that character cores predicted performance and psychological well-being outcomes above and beyond personality. The implications of our findings for the assessment and taxonomy of character are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The factor structure of the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS; Peterson & Seligman, 2004) has not been well established as a result of methodological challenges primarily attributable to a global positivity factor, item cross-loading across character strengths, and questions concerning the unidimensionality of the scales assessing character strengths. We sought to overcome these methodological challenges by applying exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) at the item level using a bifactor analytic approach to a large sample of 447,573 participants who completed the VIA-IS with all 240 character strengths items and a reduced set of 107 unidimensional character strength items. It was found that a 6-factor bifactor structure generally held for the reduced set of unidimensional character strength items; these dimensions were justice, temperance, courage, wisdom, transcendence, humanity, and an overarching general factor that is best described as dispositional positivity. (PsycINFO Database Record [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prior work examining the role of cultural groupings (i.e., national membership) on personal values showed small to moderate amounts of variability attributable to culture, refuting the idea that culture determines values. We extend this research by examining the proportion of variance in values that could be explained by cultural membership. Because there is no definitive level of proportion of variance that would lead to a conclusion that values are culturally determined, personality, which is arguably not culturally determined, was used as a relative benchmark. Language groups were used as an alternate conception of cultural groupings. A large data set of 144,857 workers from across 31 major language groups revealed that language groups explained a significant and non-negligible amount of variance in personal value dimensions (7%-17%). Nevertheless, this was not significantly larger than any single personality dimension (3%-12%). In other words, our data failed to support the notion that personal values are strongly determined by cultural groupings compared with personality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]