Search

Objective: Despite the proven benefits of vaccination, people differ in their willingness to get vaccinated. These differences are the result of multiple factors, including social, cultural, and psychological variables. This meta-analysis estimated the effects of people's Big Five personality traits on their vaccination attitudes, intentions, and behaviors and examined the role of theoretically and empirically derived moderator variables., Method: We meta-analyzed data from 28 studies that sampled over 48,000 individuals to estimate the effects of Big Five personality traits on vaccination attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. In addition, we tested the moderating effects of age, gender, sample region, sample type (representative vs. convenience), vaccination measure (attitude, intention, behavior, compound), vaccination type (COVID-19, Influenza, or other), and reliability of the Big Five measure on the links between personality traits and vaccination., Results: People with high levels in agreeableness and extraversion, and low levels in neuroticism reported more positive attitudes toward vaccination, whereas open people reported stronger intentions to get vaccinated. Open and agreeable people were also more positive about novel COVID-19 vaccines, whereas extraverted people were more positive about influenza vaccines. There were no effects for conscientiousness. Overall, effect sizes were small but generalized across age. Other moderator effects suggested a more nuanced picture across cultural regions, sample types, and gender., Conclusions: The findings provide a compelling picture of significant, albeit small, effects of personality traits on vaccination. Questions remain about the processes through which personality traits may affect vaccination attitudes, intentions, and potentially also behavior. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Health, environmental concern, and animal rights are established motives for reduced meat consumption that can be measured by the Vegetarian Eating Motives Inventory (VEMI). This preregistered study aimed to expand the VEMI to include four less-studied motives: disgust, social, concern about zoonotic diseases and pandemics, and concern for workers' rights. We had three objectives: to combine the seven motives into a comprehensive model, to test if the VEMI+ scales function equivalently across omnivore and vegan groups, and to validate and differentiate these motives against external measures and meat reduction appeals. In samples of 731 omnivores and 731 vegans (total N = 1,462), we found support for the measurement invariance of a seven-factor structure across groups and created a scale with reliable measures for each dimension (ω total between 0.82 and 0.97). Vegans scored higher overall, with substantially higher scores on environmental concern, animal rights, disgust, and zoonotic disease concerns, while omnivores had slightly higher scores on health, social, and workers' rights scales. Scale scores had expected correlations with criterion measures and differentially predicted support for motive-tailored appeals. This study enhances our understanding of dietary motivations and provides a valuable tool for future research., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Meat consumption has a host of serious negative consequences for nonhuman animals, underprivileged humans, and the natural environment. Several interventions have been developed to encourage meat reduction but to relatively limited effect. There is also a range of established predictors of meat consumption, but much less is known about the factors that predict intentions to reduce meat consumption. The goal of this study was to determine the roles of personality and self-knowledge in meat reduction intentions., Method: In this set of three preregistered studies, we tested brief interventions to encourage meat reduction intentions and examined personality predictors of intentions to reduce meat consumption., Results: We found no evidence that brief interventions with or without a self-knowledge component had a meaningful effect on changing meat reduction intentions. However, we found robust evidence for relatively small associations between intending to eat less meat and high Openness to Experience, high Emotionality, and perceiving meat reduction as moral behaviors., Conclusion: Individual differences may be a more influential predictor of meat reduction intentions than brief interventions. Implications for promoting meat reduction are discussed., (© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Personality published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objective: Climate change is a serious threat. Personality psychologists can help address this threat by understanding what kind of people tend to endorse proenvironmental attitudes and engage in sustainable behavior. Previous research supports reliable associations between proenvironmental attitudes and personality traits. However, this research has generally aggregated different kinds of attitudes into a single composite and has focused on the domain level of personality traits., Method: This study explored how 10 lower-order aspects of the Big Five personality traits were related to eight different proenvironmental attitudes in three convenience samples from the United States (N = 1234; 1000) and the United Kingdom (N = 538)., Results: All five trait domains were related to at least one proenvironmental attitude across all three samples. Seven of eight proenvironmental attitudes could be predicted by one or more traits in all three samples. We also found evidence that the Openness aspect of Openness to Experience was a more consistent predictor of proenvironmental attitudes than the Intellect aspect. In contrast, there was little benefit in distinguishing between the aspects of other trait domains. We did not find evidence that age or political orientation moderated the associations between proenvironmental attitudes and personality., Conclusion: Results point to the need for more fine-grained research on individual differences in proenvironmental attitudes and behavior., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objective: This preregistered study provides robust estimates of the links between Big Five personality traits and civic engagement across different samples and life stages., Methods: We recruited two samples from the United States and United Kingdom (total N = 1593) and measured Big Five domains, Big Five aspects, and six civic engagement indicators: volunteerism, charitable giving, donating blood, posthumous organ donation, political voting, and vaccination. We compared the links between these measures across samples and tested moderation across life stages and several sociodemographic variables. We explored whether these links replicate between self- and peer-reports., Results: We found small but robust effects. Agreeable, extraverted, and open/intellectual participants reported more civic engagement, especially volunteerism and charitable giving. Neurotic and conscientious participants mainly reported less civic engagement, especially blood and organ donations. One of the two Big Five aspects often drove these links, such as Compassion in the link between Agreeableness and volunteerism. We found some differences between younger and middle-aged adults., Conclusions: Big Five personality traits predict civic engagement modestly but consistently, with adequate study power being critical to detecting these links. Lower-order traits, such as Big Five aspects, clarify the relationships between traits and engagement. Life stages and sociodemographic variables have limited effects., (© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Personality published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Measures of the same phenomenon should produce the same results; this principle is fundamental because it allows for replication-the basis of science. Unfortunately, measures of a psychological construct in one language can often measure something a bit different in another language (i.e., low "scale equivalence"). Historically, the problem was thought to stem from insufficient knowledge of best-practice translation procedures. Yet solutions based on this diagnosis and their widespread adoption have not resolved the issue. In this article, we suggest that an additional problem might be insufficient information about the measure being translated. If so, low scale equivalence is a problem that translators and cross-cultural psychologists cannot solve on their own. We explore the possibility that measure-specific translation guides be created by original scale builders for the most widely used measures of important psychological constructs. We describe why such guides are needed, when they are needed, what they might look like, their feasibility, and next steps, providing a complete example guide and test case in a supplement concerning the Primals Inventory. In this article, we seek to spark discussion on translation practices happening behind the scenes and how greater transparency can improve scale equivalence, in the spirit of open science.

Affect is involved in many psychological phenomena, but a descriptive structure, long sought, has been elusive. Valence and arousal are fundamental, and a key question-the focus of the present study-is the relationship between them. Valence is sometimes thought to be independent of arousal, but, in some studies (representing too few societies in the world) arousal was found to vary with valence. One common finding is that arousal is lowest at neutral valence and increases with both positive and negative valence: a symmetric V-shaped relationship. In the study reported here of self-reported affect during a remembered moment ( N = 8,590), we tested the valence-arousal relationship in 33 societies with 25 different languages. The two most common hypotheses in the literature-independence and a symmetric V-shaped relationship-were not supported. With data of all samples pooled, arousal increased with positive but not negative valence. Valence accounted for between 5% (Finland) and 43% (China Beijing) of the variance in arousal. Although there is evidence for a structural relationship between the two, there is also a large amount of variability in this relation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Recent theoretical advances have grounded gelotophobia (Greek: gelos  = laughter, phobos  = fear) in a dynamic framework of causes, moderating factors, and consequences of the fear of being laughed at. This understanding corresponds to that of vulnerability and translates gelotophobia into a distinguishable pattern of lacking resources (i.e., misinterpretation of joy and laughter) that can result in negative consequences (e.g., reduced well-being and performance) if individuals have no access to further resources (e.g., social support) or are exposed to severe stressors (e.g., workplace bullying). Based on the panel data provided by the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research LIVES ( N =  2469 across six measurement intervals), this study takes the first step toward empirically testing this model's assumptions: First, we computed exemplary zero-order correlations and showed that gelotophobia was negatively connected with social support (resource) and life and job satisfaction (consequences) and positively connected with perceived stress, work stress, and workplace bullying (stressors). Second, we used longitudinal cluster analyses (KmL; k-means-longitudinal) and showed that the panel data can be clustered into three stable patterns of life and job satisfaction and that gelotophobia is primarily related to the two clusters marked by lower levels of satisfaction. Third, we computed partial correlations and showed that social support, perceived stress, and work stress (but not workplace bullying) can weaken or completely resolve gelotophobia's relationships with such diverging trajectories of life and job satisfaction. We concluded that seeing gelotophobia through the lens of vulnerability is useful and that such research warrants further attention using more dedicated, theoretically grounded projects., Competing Interests: Conflict of InterestThe authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (© The Author(s) 2020.)

This study examines Peterson and Seligman's (2004, p. 19) claim that every VIA character strength "(…) is morally valued in its own right, even in the absence of obvious beneficial outcomes". Although this criterion assumes a pivotal role in distinguishing character from personality, no previous study has investigated its validity. Based on what Peterson and Seligman (2004) have provided us with, we describe how we built our study around indirectly testing every strength's assumed moral evaluation, in which inclinations toward deontology (e.g., "torture is wrong regardless of tangible positive outcomes") and consequentialism (e.g., "torture can be good if it accounts for more positive than negative outcomes") may play a critical role. We used Peterson and Seligman's (2004) handbook to construct four ultra-short stories for every strength: the stories depict various agents engaging in strength-related behavior (e.g., a young student courageously stepping up against school bullies). We prompted participants to rate these and twelve anchor stories multiple times as to whether the agents acted morally correct: In the first block, the actions' consequences were undetermined while in the second block, the actions had either positive, negative, or mixed consequences, which we used to compute proxies of participants' inclinations toward deontology and consequentialism. The ratings of N = 230 German-speaking laypersons suggest that the criterion stands: participants perceived every strength as positively morally valued when consequences were undetermined, and positive consequences did not account for or increase this effect. However, moral value seems to come in degrees, and some strengths were valued more strongly than others (top five: judgment, honesty, kindness, fairness, and hope). Furthermore, specific character strengths (measured by self-report) were connected with more positive evaluations (e.g., endorsing spirituality was connected with rating spirituality as more positively valued). Both deontology and consequentialism were connected with more positive evaluations, and we suggest two hypotheses to explain how such inclinations can lead to perceiving character strengths as positively valued. Our findings highlight the importance of scrutinizing the criteria for character strengths, and our experimental paradigm can offer a template to further investigate character strengths' moral evaluation and other fundamental assumptions in upcoming studies., (Copyright © 2020 Stahlmann and Ruch.)