Why Stop at Two Opinions? Reply to McCrae (2020)

Show full item record



Permalink

http://hdl.handle.net/10138/324770

Citation

Bleidorn , W , Hill , P L , Back , M D , Denissen , J J A , Hennecke , M , Hopwood , C J , Jokela , M , Kandler , C , Lucas , R E , Luhmann , M , Orth , U , Wagner , J , Wrzus , C , Zimmermann , J & Roberts , B 2020 , ' Why Stop at Two Opinions? Reply to McCrae (2020) ' , American Psychologist , vol. 75 , no. 5 , pp. 731-732 . https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000676

Title: Why Stop at Two Opinions? Reply to McCrae (2020)
Author: Bleidorn, Wiebke; Hill, Patrick L.; Back, Mitja D.; Denissen, Jaap J. A.; Hennecke, Marie; Hopwood, Christopher J.; Jokela, Markus; Kandler, Christian; Lucas, Richard E.; Luhmann, Maike; Orth, Ulrich; Wagner, Jenny; Wrzus, Cornelia; Zimmermann, Johannes; Roberts, Brent
Contributor: University of Helsinki, Department of Psychology and Logopedics
Date: 2020
Language: eng
Number of pages: 2
Belongs to series: American Psychologist
ISSN: 0003-066X
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10138/324770
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.
Subject: personality
development
longitudinal
policy
interventions
515 Psychology
Rights:


Files in this item

Total number of downloads: Loading...

Files Size Format View
AMP_S_20_00365.pdf 493.0Kb PDF View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show full item record