Why stop at two opinions? Reply to McCrae (2020)

W. Bleidorn; P.L. Hill; M.D. Back; J.J.A. Denissen; M. Hennecke; C.J. Hopwood; M. Jokela; C. Kandler; R.E. Lucas; M. Luhmann; U. Orth; J. Wagner; C. Wrzus; J. Zimmermann; B. Roberts

doi:10.1037/amp0000676

Why stop at two opinions? Reply to McCrae (2020)

W. Bleidorn, P.L. Hill, M.D. Back, J.J.A. Denissen, M. Hennecke, C.J. Hopwood, M. Jokela, C. Kandler, R.E. Lucas, M. Luhmann, U. Orth, J. Wagner, C. Wrzus, J. Zimmermann, B. Roberts

Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

McCrae (2020) argues that it is premature to explore interventions focused on personality change. In his commentary, he suggests that interventions should be promoted only if their effects in self-report data are confirmed by the additional opinion of informants. We agree with the essence of his position and would go further by envisioning a new framework for rigorous collaborative research on personality change (Bleidorn et al., 2020). We nevertheless maintain that policymakers would benefit from considering the additional opinion of personality scientists.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	731-732
Journal	American Psychologist
Volume	75
Issue number	5
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000676
Publication status	Published - 2020
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

Development
Interventions
Longitudinal
Personality
Policy

Access to Document

10.1037/amp0000676

Cite this

@article{432704e8ac2f4beebea12b04be8c2a77,

title = "Why stop at two opinions? Reply to McCrae (2020)",

abstract = "McCrae (2020) argues that it is premature to explore interventions focused on personality change. In his commentary, he suggests that interventions should be promoted only if their effects in self-report data are confirmed by the additional opinion of informants. We agree with the essence of his position and would go further by envisioning a new framework for rigorous collaborative research on personality change (Bleidorn et al., 2020). We nevertheless maintain that policymakers would benefit from considering the additional opinion of personality scientists.",

keywords = "Development, Interventions, Longitudinal, Personality, Policy",

author = "W. Bleidorn and P.L. Hill and M.D. Back and J.J.A. Denissen and M. Hennecke and C.J. Hopwood and M. Jokela and C. Kandler and R.E. Lucas and M. Luhmann and U. Orth and J. Wagner and C. Wrzus and J. Zimmermann and B. Roberts",

year = "2020",

doi = "10.1037/amp0000676",

language = "English",

volume = "75",

pages = "731--732",

journal = "American Psychologist",

issn = "0003-066X",

publisher = "American Psychological Association",

number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Why stop at two opinions? Reply to McCrae (2020)

AU - Bleidorn, W.

AU - Hill, P.L.

AU - Back, M.D.

AU - Denissen, J.J.A.

AU - Hennecke, M.

AU - Hopwood, C.J.

AU - Jokela, M.

AU - Kandler, C.

AU - Lucas, R.E.

AU - Luhmann, M.

AU - Orth, U.

AU - Wagner, J.

AU - Wrzus, C.

AU - Zimmermann, J.

AU - Roberts, B.

PY - 2020

Y1 - 2020

N2 - McCrae (2020) argues that it is premature to explore interventions focused on personality change. In his commentary, he suggests that interventions should be promoted only if their effects in self-report data are confirmed by the additional opinion of informants. We agree with the essence of his position and would go further by envisioning a new framework for rigorous collaborative research on personality change (Bleidorn et al., 2020). We nevertheless maintain that policymakers would benefit from considering the additional opinion of personality scientists.

AB - McCrae (2020) argues that it is premature to explore interventions focused on personality change. In his commentary, he suggests that interventions should be promoted only if their effects in self-report data are confirmed by the additional opinion of informants. We agree with the essence of his position and would go further by envisioning a new framework for rigorous collaborative research on personality change (Bleidorn et al., 2020). We nevertheless maintain that policymakers would benefit from considering the additional opinion of personality scientists.

KW - Development

KW - Interventions

KW - Longitudinal

KW - Personality

KW - Policy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85088157548&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/amp0000676

DO - 10.1037/amp0000676

M3 - Letter

C2 - 32673019

AN - SCOPUS:85088157548

SN - 0003-066X

VL - 75

SP - 731

EP - 732

JO - American Psychologist

JF - American Psychologist

IS - 5

ER -

Why stop at two opinions? Reply to McCrae (2020)

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this