Search

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 fields practices and norms have now become models for other fields to emulate (or, for those who share Baumeisters (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 psychologys 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.

Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) and matrix-induced ACI (MACI) have demonstrated improved clinical outcomes and reduced revision rates for treating osteochondral and chondral defects. However, their ability to achieve lasting, fully functional repair remains limited. To overcome these challenges, scaffold-enhanced ACI, particularly utilizing hydrogel-based biomaterials, has emerged as an innovative strategy. These biomaterials are intended to mimic the biological composition, structural organization, and biomechanical properties of native articular cartilage. This review aims to provide comprehensive and up-to-date information on advancements in hydrogel-enhanced ACI from the past decade. We begin with a brief introduction to cartilage biology, mechanisms of cartilage injury, and the evolution of surgical techniques, particularly looking at ACI. Subsequently, we review the diversity of hydrogel scaffolds currently undergoing development and evaluation in preclinical studies for articular cartilage regeneration, emphasizing chondrocyte-laden hydrogels applicable to ACI. Finally, we address the key challenges impeding effective clinical translation, with particular attention to issues surrounding fixation and integration, aiming to inform and guide the future progression of tissue engineering strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People vary in how they perceive, think about, and respond to moral issues. Clearly, we cannot fully understand the psychology of morality without accounting for individual differences in moral functioning. But decades of neglect of and explicit skepticism toward such individual differences has resulted in a lack of integration between moral psychology and personality psychology—the study of psychological differences between people. In recent years, these barriers to progress have started to break down. This special issue aims to celebrate and further increase the visibility of the personality psychology of morality. Here, we introduce the articles in this special issue by highlighting some important contributions a personality‐based perspective has to offer moral psychology—particularly in comparison to the currently prominent social psychological approach. We show that personality psychology is well‐placed to (a) contribute toward a rigorous empirical foundation for moral psychology, (b) tackle the conceptualization and assessment of stable moral tendencies, (c) assess the predictive validity of moral traits in relation to consequential outcomes, (d) uncover the mechanisms underlying individual differences in moral judgments and behavior, and (e) provide insights into moral development. For these reasons, we believe that moral psychology needs personality psychology to reach its full scholarly potential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The psychological profile of the moral person might depend on whose perspective is being used. Here, we decompose moral impressions into three components: (a) Shared Moral Character (shared variance across self‐ and informant reports), (b) Moral Identity (how a person uniquely views their morality), and (c) Moral Reputation (how others uniquely view that person's morality). Method: In two samples (total N = 458), we used an extended version of the Trait‐Reputation‐Identity model to examine the extent to which each perspective accounts for the overall variance in moral impressions and the degree to which social and personal outcomes were associated with each perspective, controlling for method variance (i.e., positivity and acquiescence bias). Results: Results suggest that moral character impressions are strongly influenced by positivity and largely idiosyncratic. All components were related to higher levels of agreeableness. For the most part, however, the three components had unique correlates: people higher in Shared Moral Character tended to have higher standings on conscientiousness and honesty‐humility, were more respected, and donated more during an in‐lab game; people higher in Moral Identity endorsed various moral foundations to a greater extent; and people higher in Moral Reputation valued the loyalty foundation less. Conclusion: These results demonstrate the value of considering multiple perspectives when measuring moral character. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: What types of moral improvements do people wish to make? Do they hope to become more good, or less bad? Do they wish to be more caring? More honest? More loyal? And why exactly do they want to become more moral? Presumably, most people want to improve their morality because this would benefit others, but is this in fact their primary motivation? Here, we begin to investigate these questions. Method: Across two large, preregistered studies (N = 1818), participants provided open‐ended descriptions of one change they could make in order to become more moral; they then reported their beliefs about and motives for this change. Results: In both studies, people most frequently expressed desires to improve their compassion and more often framed their moral improvement goals in terms of amplifying good behaviors than curbing bad ones. The strongest predictor of moral motivation was the extent to which people believed that making the change would have positive consequences for their own well‐being. Conclusions: Together, these studies provide rich descriptive insights into how ordinary people want to be more moral, and show that they are particularly motivated to do so for their own sake. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To propose a new reconstruction method for multidimensional MR fingerprinting (mdMRF) to address shading artifacts caused by physiological motion‐induced measurement errors without navigating or gating. Methods: The proposed method comprises two procedures: self‐calibration and subspace reconstruction. The first procedure (self‐calibration) applies temporally local matrix completion to reconstruct low‐resolution images from a subset of under‐sampled data extracted from the k‐space center. The second procedure (subspace reconstruction) utilizes temporally global subspace reconstruction with pre‐estimated temporal subspace from low‐resolution images to reconstruct aliasing‐free, high‐resolution, and time‐resolved images. After reconstruction, a customized outlier detection algorithm was employed to automatically detect and remove images corrupted by measurement errors. Feasibility, robustness, and scan efficiency were evaluated through in vivo human brain imaging experiments. Results: The proposed method successfully reconstructed aliasing‐free, high‐resolution, and time‐resolved images, where the measurement errors were accurately represented. The corrupted images were automatically and robustly detected and removed. Artifact‐free T1, T2, and ADC maps were generated simultaneously. The proposed reconstruction method demonstrated robustness across different scanners, parameter settings, and subjects. A high scan efficiency of less than 20 s per slice has been achieved. Conclusion: The proposed reconstruction method can effectively alleviate shading artifacts caused by physiological motion‐induced measurement errors. It enables simultaneous and artifact‐free quantification of T1, T2, and ADC using mdMRF scans without prospective gating, with robustness and high scan efficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To explore whether MR fingerprinting (MRF) scans provide motion‐robust and quantitative brain tissue measurements for non‐sedated infants with prenatal opioid exposure (POE). Study Type: Prospective. Population: 13 infants with POE (3 male; 12 newborns (age 7–65 days) and 1 infant aged 9‐months). Field Strength/Sequence: 3T, 3D T1‐weighted MPRAGE, 3D T2‐weighted TSE and MRF sequences. Assessment: The image quality of MRF and MRI was assessed in a fully crossed, multiple‐reader, multiple‐case study. Sixteen image quality features in three types—image artifacts, structure and myelination visualization—were ranked by four neuroradiologists (8, 7, 5, and 8 years of experience respectively), using a 3‐point scale. MRF T1 and T2 values in 8 white matter brain regions were compared between babies younger than 1 month and babies between 1 and 2 months. Statistical Tests: Generalized estimating equations model to test the significance of differences of regional T1 and T2 values of babies under 1 month and those older. MRI and MRF image quality was assessed using Gwet's second order auto‐correlation coefficient (AC2) with confidence levels. The Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel test was used to assess the difference in proportions between MRF and MRI for all features and stratified by the type of features. A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The MRF of two infants were excluded in T1 and T2 value analysis due to severe motion artifact but were included in the image quality assessment. In infants under 1 month of age (N = 6), the T1 and T2 values were significantly higher compared to those between 1 and 2 months of age (N = 4). MRF images showed significantly higher image quality ratings in all three feature types compared to MRI images. Conclusions: MR Fingerprinting scans have potential to be a motion‐robust and efficient method for nonsedated infants. Level of Evidence: 2 Technical Efficacy Stage: 1 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]