European Journal of Personality

Trust decisions often rely on a partner’s reputation, yet little is known about interindividual differences in how people use such information when deciding whom to trust. Across four pre-registered studies (total N = 1,171), we examined whether associations between trust-related personality traits and trust vary as a function of a trustee’s reputation. We focused on three traits that should differentially interact with reputation information: General Trust—the tendency to believe in the benevolence of others; Victim Sensitivity—the anxious expectation of being exploited by others; and Honesty-Humility—an individual’s dispositional prosociality. In Studies 1–3, participants acted as trustors in peer-to-peer car-sharing scenarios and rated either the trustworthiness of potential renters or their intention to rent out their car. In Study 4, participants made real, incentivized trust decisions in economic trust games with reputation cues based on actual behavior. Across studies, higher reputation consistently increased trust, and General Trust showed a broad positive association with trust. By contrast, Victim Sensitivity and Honesty-Humility showed reputation-contingent associations with trust; however, the specific interaction patterns varied across studies. Overall, trustor personality and trustee reputation jointly shape trust, yet the nature of this interplay differs across personality traits and the motivational tendencies they capture.

When deciding whether to trust someone, people often rely on that person’s reputation. For example, we may trust someone more if others have rated them positively. However, not everyone uses reputation information in the same way. In this research, we examined how personality differences are related to people’s trust decisions when reputation information is available. We focused on three traits: a general tendency to trust others, called General Trust; a tendency to worry about being taken advantage of, called Victim Sensitivity; and a tendency to be fair and cooperative, called Honesty-Humility. Across four studies, people trusted others more when those others had a better reputation. People with higher General Trust also tended to trust more overall. Victim Sensitivity and Honesty-Humility were also related to trust, but these links depended on the other person’s reputation. However, the exact patterns differed across studies, so they should be interpreted cautiously. Overall, our findings suggest that trust decisions are shaped both by what we know about others and by our own personality. They also show that personality may matter in different ways depending on the reputation information available.

What determines whether a romantic relationship survives? We used machine learning (random forest and elastic net models) to predict relationship dissolution in two longitudinal samples. In Study 1 (N = 1,281), drawn from individuals in dating relationships in the United States and Canada, both models achieved 64% balanced accuracy, suggesting that dissolution is largely explained by linear combinations of relational predictors. Top predictors included commitment, relational uncertainty, and concerns about the consequences of ending the relationship. Commitment-focused variables outperformed trait-focused ones in predicting breakup (64% vs. 55% balanced accuracy). In Study 2 (N = 6,947), a nationally representative German sample of young to middle-aged adults tracked over 10 years, the random forest model achieved higher (71%) balanced accuracy among a broader set of contextual predictors. Top predictors included socioeconomic background, division of household labor, and conflict communication. Several nonlinear interactions emerged, highlighting the complexity of predicting dissolution. The findings highlight the joint role of relational, demographic, and contextual factors in predicting relationship stability. (163 words).

Breakups are common but difficult to predict. We used machine learning, a type of computer analysis that detects patterns in large datasets, to identify which factors best predict whether a romantic relationship will end. We studied two large groups of couples in North America and Germany. In both studies, relationship-specific factors such as commitment and relational uncertainty were strong predictors of breakup. In the German sample, which followed couples over 10 years, broader life circumstances also mattered. Family socioeconomic background, division of household tasks, and conflict communication all predicted dissolution. The computer models performed better in this larger, more diverse sample, suggesting that relationship breakup becomes more predictable when a wider range of life factors is considered. Together, these findings show that both relationship quality and broader life context shape whether couples stay together and that machine learning can help identify these patterns across diverse populations.

Adverse experiences in early life significantly impact an individual’s long-term physical and mental health. Socially prescribed perfectionism has also been found to be associated with negative outcomes, including suicide risk. However, less is known about how these variables interact or their mechanisms of action in daily life. The current research explores the main and interactive effects of childhood trauma and socially prescribed perfectionism on measures of perceived stress, mood, defeat and entrapment as well as indirect effects. Three studies (cross-sectional survey and two 7-day intensive longitudinal designs) are reported. Participants completed the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire and measures of socially prescribed perfectionism, history of suicide thoughts and behaviours, perceived stress, mood, defeat and entrapment. The results showed that childhood trauma and socially prescribed perfectionism were associated with higher levels of perceived stress, negative mood, defeat, entrapment and less positive mood in adulthood across the three studies. Childhood trauma and socially prescribed perfectionism also indirectly affected daily negative mood through daily perceived stress levels and daily feelings of entrapment through daily levels of defeat. Interventions aimed at mitigating the negative effects of childhood trauma and socially prescribed perfectionism ought to target modifiable risk factors such as perceived stress, mood, defeat and entrapment.

Experiences of abuse, neglect or other difficult events in childhood can have lasting effects on both mental and physical health. People who feel pressured to meet other people's high expectations – a pattern known as socially prescribed perfectionism – also tend to experience more stress and emotional difficulties, and may be at higher risk of suicidal thoughts. This research looked at how childhood trauma and perfectionism might work together to influence people’s day-to-day feelings and mental health. Across three studies – one large survey and two week-long daily diary studies – adults completed questionnaires about their childhood experiences, perfectionism, stress, mood and feelings of defeat or being trapped. The findings showed that both childhood trauma and perfectionism were linked to higher stress, more negative mood and stronger feelings of defeat and entrapment, as well as fewer positive emotions. The studies also found that the effects of trauma and perfectionism on daily feelings of being trapped were partly explained by daily feelings of defeat and stress. These results suggest that helping people manage stress, improve mood and reduce feelings of defeat and entrapment may lessen some of the long-term emotional effects of childhood trauma and perfectionism.

Fluctuations in narcissism are well-known but understudied phenomena. Existing studies evaluated how state agentic and neurotic narcissism interplay. However, they have overlooked antagonistic narcissism. This paper addresses this gap and presents data from an intensive longitudinal study (N = 199; k = 7,991 responses). Using dynamic structural equation modeling, we assessed fluctuations in narcissism and how they are related to fluctuations in momentary affect. We found that increases in antagonistic narcissism predicted subsequent increases in agentic and neurotic narcissism and vice versa, highlighting the central role of antagonism in the fluctuation process. Furthermore, we shed light on how fluctuations in momentary affective states can predict fluctuations in narcissistic states. Greater inertia (i.e., time needed for returning to personal equilibrium) in positive affect preceded inertia of agentic narcissism, while greater inertia in negative affect preceded inertia of neurotic narcissism. Fluctuations from agentic to antagonistic narcissism, as well as the inertia of antagonistic narcissism, were associated with fluctuations from positive to negative affect. Our findings show that these changes in narcissism occur in a specific sequence: from agentic to antagonistic, and finally to neurotic narcissism. The results provide novel insights into the complex interplay between narcissism and affectivity, aligning with theoretical predictions.

There are different forms of narcissism, such as agentic, antagonistic, and neurotic, which reflect different characteristics, such as self-promotion, entitlement, and hypersensitivity. These forms of narcissism can change over time, and the current study sought to explore how these different forms of narcissism co-occur. Our findings show that these changes in narcissism occur in a specific sequence: from agentic to antagonistic, and finally to neurotic narcissism. Moreover, we revealed that these changes in narcissism are also linked to how one feels. Our findings demonstrate that narcissism is a dynamic construct.

Previous work suggests that self–other agreement in personality judgment is lower for evaluative than for neutral items. We tested whether this pattern generalizes to judgments collected with Who Knows, a mobile app in which users watch brief video clips of strangers and try to predict how targets answered highly concrete personality statements. The dataset comprised >340,000 predictions from >4,000 judges across 296 items and 75 targets. Contrary to prior findings, item evaluativeness did not reduce prediction accuracy with respect to targets’ self-reports. Instead, evaluativeness was positively associated with prediction accuracy for Likert-type items while no effect was observed for binary items. Other coded item features (e.g., base rate and psychological modality) showed no consistent associations with prediction accuracy across formats. We propose two boundary conditions that may help reconcile these results with earlier work: (a) the present item pool is unusually concrete, which alters the distribution and correlates of desirability/evaluativeness, and (b) judges were instructed to predict targets’ self-reports rather than provide their own impressions. Under this instruction, judges may partly rely on between-target differences in self-protective responding when forming predictions. These findings caution against transferring item-feature effects from adjective-based impression paradigms to concrete items and self-report prediction tasks.

Personality research often compares how people describe themselves with how others describe them. Earlier studies suggest that this self–other agreement tends to be lower for evaluative statements (e.g., “fair”) than for more neutral statements (e.g., “talkative”). We tested whether this pattern holds for highly concrete statements (for instance “afraid of spiders”) which people evaluated about strangers using the mobile app Who Knows. Within this app, users try to predict how people viewed in short self-introduction videos answered concrete statements about themselves. The dataset included over 340,000 predictions from more than 4,000 users, across 296 statements and 75 target persons. Contrary to earlier findings, evaluative statements did not reduce how well users could predict targets’ self-reports. For rating-scale statements, evaluativeness was linked to slightly higher prediction accuracy; for yes/no statements, evaluativeness was unrelated to accuracy. Other statement features (such as whether a statement concerned thoughts, feelings, or actions, or whether it described something rare vs. common) showed no consistent links to prediction accuracy. We suggest two reasons why our results differ from prior self–other agreement studies. First, our statement set was unusually concrete, which changes the distribution and meaning of evaluativeness. Second, users were explicitly asked to predict self-reports rather than give their own impressions. Under these instructions, users may successfully infer how much targets tend to self-present in favorable ways. Overall, what is known about the effects of typical questionnaire statements from classic impression research may not transfer directly to concrete statements and self-report prediction tasks.

Posttraumatic growth (PTG) refers to desired psychological change following adversity, traditionally assessed across five domains (e.g., Personal Strength and Relating to Others). Research suggests that PTG may be operationalized as personality change. This study examines whether spousal loss is associated with desired changes in Big Five traits as a form of PTG. We included n = 256 spousal loss cases from the publicly available Dutch LISS panel and matched controls. Controls were identified using propensity score matching on relevant covariates and a dependent variable matching procedure to ensure baseline trait similarity. Annual assessments spanning 2 years before to 4 years after the loss were analyzed using linear mixed models. Spousal loss was not associated with desired personality changes. On the contrary, bereaved persons showed a noticeable temporal increase in Neuroticism surrounding the loss and decreasing Conscientiousness after loss. Especially in bereaved men, Neuroticism rose until the year of loss and declined subsequently but remained above control levels. The predominant trait-based operationalization of PTG contradicts retrospective self-reports. Perceived PTG may align with a curvilinear course of Neuroticism, where eventual posttrauma reductions in emotional distress are perceived as growth.

Losing a spouse is one of the hardest life experiences. Some people describe this loss as a turning point that made them stronger, more appreciative of life, or better in relationships. Researchers call such positive changes “posttraumatic growth.” A key question is whether this growth manifests as positive personality trait change. Psychologists often describe personality using the “Big Five” traits: Extraversion (being outgoing), Openness (being curious and creative), Agreeableness (being cooperative and kind), Conscientiousness (being organized and reliable), and Neuroticism (being prone to worry and stress). If PTG were taking place, we would expect to see people becoming more outgoing, open, agreeable, and conscientious, and lower in Neuroticism. We analyzed data from 256 Dutch adults who lost their spouse and compared their personality development over a period of seven years (from 2 years before the loss until 4 years after loss) with control groups, who were matched on background factors and on their personality levels. Our findings show that spousal loss was not linked to notable personality change in the expected way. There were even some negative trends. Neuroticism increased until the year of loss, particularly among bereaved men. Although it decreased in the following years, it remained elevated. Further, Conscientiousness decreased after the loss and remained lower compared to before loss. These results suggest that losing a spouse does not typically lead to personality growth as measured in traits. Instead, people may perceive growth when they notice that emotional distress eventually lessens over time. This highlights an important difference between what people feel has changed and what can be observed in their personality.

The 10-item Big Five Inventory (BFI-10) is a personality measure widely used in numerous contexts, including large cohort studies. We report that its openness subscale (two items) is flawed due to a linguistically ambiguous item: ‘I see myself as someone who has few artistic interests’. The word ‘few’ is often misinterpreted as ‘some’ instead of its intended meaning of ‘almost none’, leading to inconsistent responses. Across nine datasets (N = 6,640), this item shows weak or no inter-item correlations with the other openness item, contrasting sharply with those observed within the other four personality dimensions. To confirm that the issue stems from wording rather than semantics, we tested a revised item (‘…has hardly any artistic interests’), which improves inter-item correlations, test–retest reliability, criterion validity, and statistical power. Simulation analyses show that the original item substantially reduces statistical power to detect true changes in openness. The problematic item also appears in the 44-item BFI, suggesting possible misinterpretations in the aesthetics facet. To address existing datasets, we evaluated adjustment methods through additional simulations, showing that regression-based adjustment approaches can partially but meaningfully reduce bias. We recommend re-evaluating prior findings, applying the correction strategies to existing datasets, and updating future data collection.

The 10-item Big Five Inventory (BFI-10) is a short and popular test used to measure personality. We found that one of its two questions assessing ‘openness’ (receptiveness to new ideas, experiences, and variety) is confusing and may lead respondents to answer incorrectly. The question reads, ‘I see myself as someone who has few artistic interests’. Many people interpret the word ‘few’ to mean ‘some’, when it actually means ‘almost none’. We analyzed data from over 6,600 participants across nine datasets and consistently found evidence for this misinterpretation. Specifically, answers to this question do not match well with answers to the other openness question, making the openness score unreliable. Moreover, when we replaced the word ‘few’ with ‘hardly any’, the results became more consistent and reliable, and the change improved several indicators of measurement quality. For researchers working with existing datasets that include the original question, we also show that statistical adjustments can partially correct for the bias. Because this flawed question has been used for many years and also appears in the longer 44-item version of the questionnaire, some previous findings about openness might need re-evaluation. We suggest using the revised version and paying closer attention to how subtle wording choices can affect personality research.

Personality is increasingly viewed as a dynamic system arising from the interaction between individuals and their situations. Yet, in naturalistic data, within-person links between personality states and situation perceptions often conflate two distinct mechanisms: situation contact—what people objectively encounter—and situation construal—how they interpret these encounters. To disentangle these components, we combined two longitudinal approaches: a standardized laboratory study (N = 189) in which situation contact was held largely constant, and a naturalistic experience-sampling study (N = 1,596) capturing the diversity of everyday contexts. Multilevel models revealed meaningful within-person covariation between Big Five states and situation perceptions in both designs, with effect sizes that were small to medium in magnitude and theoretically coherent across both settings. However, in the naturalistic study, person–situation associations varied systematically across situation cues—social partner, location, and activity—with some associations shifting in magnitude or reversing direction depending on the context. Together, these findings suggest that construal is a primary driver of person–situation associations, but that situation contact shapes which associations emerge, to what degree, and across which situation perception dimensions. Accounting for situation contact may therefore help to more accurately capture personality as a context-sensitive, dynamic system.

People act differently depending on the situation they are in, but it is unclear whether this is because of the kinds of situations they encounter or because of how they personally interpret those situations. To address this, we conducted two studies: a laboratory study (N = 189) in which participants experienced largely the same standardized situations, and a naturalistic study (N = 1,596) in which participants reported on their personality, their situation perceptions, and specific situation features (e.g., location, social partners, activity) multiple times throughout their daily lives. In both studies, how people perceived their situations was meaningfully linked to how they described their personality in that moment. However, in everyday life, these links changed depending on the specific situation people were in â€, for example, depending on whether they were alone or with friends. These findings suggest that understanding personality in everyday life requires considering not only how people interpret their situations but also what situations they actually encounter.

What characterizes individuals who stand up and take action against violations of fundamental moral principles, even in the face of personal risk and adversity? Due to methodological and ethical challenges, we are limited in our understanding of personality dispositions that predict who acts morally courageously in situations of severe wrongdoings and considerable risk. In Germany and Austria, we recruited recipients of public awards for outstanding moral courage (n = 54) and individuals who nominated themselves to have acted morally courageously (n = 48). We contrasted these morally courageous individuals with a demographically matched reference group of people who reported not to have acted morally courageously before (n = 323), and with normative samples of the German population. Results showed three key patterns: First, among the HEXACO personality factors, heightened extraversion consistently distinguished the morally courageous groups from the reference group. Second, membership in the morally courageous groups was predicted by heightened moral attentiveness and anger proneness, and lowered endorsement of loyalty and authority, indicating exceptional moral functioning of the morally courageous. Third, the morally courageous were characterized by diminished risk avoidance and social anxiety, suggesting that they encounter a lower psychological barrier posed by fear of negative social evaluation.

When they witness serious wrongdoings, some people speak up and take action, even when it is risky for them, while others remain silent. What are personality characteristics that make morally courageous individuals different? We studied people in Germany and Austria who had shown moral courage in difficult situations. Some had received public awards for their actions, while others had nominated themselves as having acted morally courageously. We compared them to people who said they had never acted this way before. We found that people who had acted with moral courage tended to be more extraverted, pay closer attention to moral issues in everyday life, get angry easily, care less about loyalty to groups or following authority when these conflict with moral values, and be less afraid of social rejection. These results suggest that there are personality characteristics that make it easier for individuals to speak up against wrongdoings that they observe. People who show moral courage seem to be especially alert to moral problems and less held back by fear or social pressure.

The maturity principle posits that socially desirable personality traits, such as agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability, tend to increase across adulthood. This study examined whether this principle extends to social, emotional, and behavioral (SEB) skills by investigating age differences in a representative sample of N = 940 German adults (age range: 18–65, mean age = 43, SD = 14, 50 % female) using moderated non-linear factor analysis models and comparing them to age differences in Big Five traits in a demographically comparable sample. Additionally, we explored age-specific associations between SEB skills and life quality, measured by life satisfaction and self-rated health. Contrary to the widely accepted maturity principle, we found few corresponding age differences in SEB skills, whereas the expected age-related patterns were evident in Big Five traits. These results remained consistent regardless of the level of measurement invariance. Some skills showed lower mean levels in older adults, and skill variances differed with age. In conclusion, these findings suggest that the maturity principle known from the Big Five literature does not fully generalize to SEB skills. This cross-sectional study lays the groundwork for future longitudinal research on SEB skills and highlights the importance of considering individuals within context.

The maturity principle proposes that, on average, people become more emotionally stable, organized and friendlier as they age. This has been studied for Big Five personality traits, but not for social, emotional, and behavioral (SEB) skills–capacities people can draw on when needed to regulate their emotions, maintain positive social relationships, and manage their goals. However, this principle has recently been criticized for being overly simplistic. We investigated whether the maturity principle applies to SEB skills in addition to Big Five traits. For this purpose, we examined age differences in two demographically representative German samples aged 18 to 65: one sample focused on SEB skills, the other on Big Five traits. Surprisingly, we found little support for the maturity principle in SEB skills, whereas it was more clearly observable in Big Five traits. While the desirable personality traits were higher in older than in younger adults, this pattern did not generalize to SEB skills. This divergence suggests that the maturity principle does not hold for SEB skills and they may develop differently from related personality traits, depending on context.

Despite decades of research on narcissism, its neural basis remains poorly understood. Competing accounts hypothesize either heightened responsiveness to socially rewarding feedback (reflecting motives for status and validation) or neural disengagement (reflecting a self-protection motive). To test these hypotheses, we recorded EEG from 98 participants as they completed Monetary and Social Incentive Delay tasks. We measured an event-related potential, known as the Reward Positivity, to examine whether narcissism was associated with altered neural sensitivity to monetarily and socially rewarding feedback. Results revealed a domain-specific dissociation. In the Monetary Incentive Delay task, narcissism was unrelated to neural responses. However, in the Social Incentive Delay task, rivalry narcissism (and overall narcissism) was associated with reduced Reward Positivity amplitudes, whereas admiration narcissism was not. These findings support the self-protective disengagement account, suggesting that individuals high in rivalry evince blunted immediate neural sensitivity to socially rewarding feedback. This early-stage disengagement may serve to maintain a sense of detachment from the self, while limiting opportunities for social learning and connection.

Narcissism is a personality trait that combines self-confidence, perfectionism, and the belief that one is special. Although narcissistic individuals are often seen as craving attention, psychologists disagree about how they respond to praise. One view suggests they are highly sensitive to compliments, which boost self-esteem. Another argues that narcissists are disengaged, tuning out feedback to protect a detached self-image. Our study tested these ideas by examining brain responses to feedback. We recorded brain activity from 98 students while they completed two tasks. In one, participants could win or lose small amounts of money depending on how quickly they responded. In the other, correct responses were rewarded with a positive social feedback (thumbs up) and incorrect responses were followed by negative social feedback (thumbs down). In both tasks, we measured a rapid brain signal called the Reward Positivity, which occurs within a few hundred milliseconds after feedback and reflects how strongly the brain reacts to rewards. Narcissism was unrelated to brain responses to money. In the social task, however, higher narcissism predicted a weaker brain response to positive feedback. This held for both admiration (self-promotion) and rivalry (competitiveness). In other words, rather than showing heightened sensitivity to praise, narcissistic individuals were less engaged with it. These findings support the idea that narcissists disengage from social rewards. Such disengagement may help them maintain an image of self-sufficiency, but it also carries costs. Tuning out praise could make it harder to learn from feedback, strengthen bonds, or benefit from supportive relationships. By showing that narcissism is linked to reduced early brain responsiveness to social rewards, our study helps explain how narcissistic self-views are sustained and why interpersonal difficulties often arise.

The current research examined if dispositional optimism buffers against negative consequences of daily stressor exposure. The work also provides a direct test of positive affect as a mediator, in line with the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Study 1 utilised data from a US older-adult sample (N = 958, M_age = 62.57, 45% male) to examine optimism’s buffering role on affective (negative affect) and cognitive (rumination) outcomes. Study 2 extended these findings with a Singapore young adult sample (N = 995, M_age = 21.93, 27% male), incorporating behavioural outcomes (procrastination and impulsivity), introducing additional affective indicators (depressive and anxious mood), and broadening the cognitive domain to include cognitive failure in addition to rumination. Using multilevel regression and multivariate modelling, we found that optimism acted as a buffer against all indicators across both studies, except for anxious mood and procrastination. Trait positive affect mediated the associations between optimism and negative affect (in Study 1), rumination (in Study 1 but not in Study 2), and depressive mood, impulsivity and cognitive failure (in Study 2). These findings shed light on the boundary conditions of the buffering effect of dispositional optimism and the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions.

This research investigated whether being optimistic helps protect people from the negative outcomes of daily stressors, and whether positive emotions explain this benefit. In Study 1, using data from 958 adults in the United States, optimism was found to reduce negative emotions and repetitive thought patterns. Study 2 used data from 995 young adults in Singapore, and outcomes included depressive and anxious moods, procrastination, impulsivity, repetitive thought patterns, and everyday cognitive slips. Optimism served as a buffer for all negative outcomes except anxious mood and procrastination. Positive emotions helped explain these benefits except for repetitive thought patterns, procrastination, and anxious mood. Overall, the findings suggest that optimism often shields people from daily stressors, though its effects have certain limits.

Research on people’s tendencies to over-, under-, or accurately estimate their abilities relies on assessments of self-perceived ability. Here, we investigated how the choice of an assessment method influences the conclusions drawn in research on two perspectives on accuracy. First, studies using the rank-order perspective are concerned with the correlation between self-perceived ability and an objective measure of “real” ability across individuals. Second, studies using the level perspective view the discrepancy between a person’s levels of self-perceived and real ability as an indicator of the degree of bias (vs. accuracy) and investigate the average discrepancy across people, individual differences in people’s discrepancies, or the association between the individual discrepancies and some outcome variable. In a cross-sectional survey of 281 participants, we assessed self-perceived intelligence in two domains (vocabulary knowledge, reasoning ability) with three measures each (percentile rank, IQ score, number of correct items). “Real” ability was measured with objective tests and transformed to match the scales of the self-assessments. We found that the measure for self-perceived intelligence impacted the conclusions drawn in analyses within the level but not the rank-order perspective. We discuss implications for the robustness of past findings and for the assessment of self-perceived intelligence in future studies.

People’s views of their own cognitive abilities are not necessarily correct. While some people judge their skills quite accurately, others overestimate or underestimate their abilities. Researchers are interested in how accurate people see themselves, and whether differences between people in this accuracy are linked to outcomes such as life satisfaction. To study these questions, researchers need to decide how to ask people about their abilities. There are different ways to do this. The aim of our study was to examine whether different assessment methods lead to different findings on accuracy and its link to personal outcomes. We asked 281 participants to rate their vocabulary and reasoning skills using three different types of questions. We then compared how accurate these ratings were across methods. We found that the three methods led to different conclusions about how much people, on average, overestimated or underestimated their abilities. They also differed in how accuracy varied across individuals, for example, in how many people over- or underestimated their cognitive skills. Moreover, the relationship between accuracy and life satisfaction depended on how self-viewed ability was measured. In contrast, people’s accuracy in judging their relative position as compared to others remained consistent across methods. Overall, our results show that findings on how accurately people judge their own abilities, and how this accuracy relates to personal outcomes, can depend on how these judgments are measured. Researchers should therefore take care in selecting how they assess people’s views of their abilities.

The social, emotional, and behavioral (SEB) skills framework was recently proposed as an integrative model for soft skills/socio-emotional competencies, clarifying their definition and distinction from personality traits. To support open and cumulative research in this area, we introduce the Living SEB Skills Project, a continuously updated database combining ongoing literature searches, an open repository of coded studies and effect sizes, and an interactive application enabling customizable meta-analyses. Using meta-analyses of correlations and meta-analytic structural equation models, we demonstrate the database’s utility by testing the predictive and incremental validity of SEB skills for academic achievement on the current available data (364 publications, of which 30 met the criteria for the living review and 19 [26 samples] for the quantitative synthesis). The Living SEB Skills Project sets out as a transparent, dynamic and openly accessible tool to accelerate and ease cumulative science and synthesis within the SEB skills framework and beyond.

The social, emotional, and behavioral (SEB) skills framework was recently introduced as a way to bring together many existing models of socio-emotional skills while clearly distinguishing skills from personality traits. Interest in SEB skills has grown rapidly across fields such as education and personality psychology. However, as the number of studies increases, it might become difficult for researchers to keep track of new findings, integrate results systematically, and synthesize the existing evidence. To address these challenges, we present the Living SEB Skills Project, a continuously updated system designed to collect, organize, and summarize all studies that use the SEB framework and its main assessment tools, the Behavioral, Emotional, and Social Skills Inventory (BESSI). The project aims to make SEB research easier to find, easier to understand, and easier to update as new studies emerge. The Living SEB Skills Project has three key components: 1. Monthly literature searches that identify all newly published SEB studies; 2.An open and transparent database containing study information, coded variables, and effect sizes; 3.The Living SEB App, a free online tool that allows users to explore the literature, run customizable meta-analyses, visualize data, and download datasets and reports. We conducted a three-level meta-analysis examining the relationship between SEB skills and academic achievement and meta-analytic structural equation modeling to test whether SEB skills predict academic achievement beyond the Big Five personality traits and beyond every other skill domain. Both analyses show that certain skills, and especially self-management, provide meaningful predictive value for academic achievement even after accounting for personality. Overall, the Living SEB skills Project offers an accessible, evolving resource that supports more cumulative, transparent, and reliable scientific progress in the study of SEB skills.

Contemporary theories of personality dynamics propose that adaptive functioning in daily life requires effective coordination of multiple goals. Goal conflict, where the pursuit of one goal lowers the ability to pursue another goal, and goal harmony, where the pursuit of one goal facilitates the pursuit of another, are typically viewed as direct opposites, but empirical evidence suggests that they represent distinct processes. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether goal conflict and goal harmony are dynamically linked over time—and whether that link differs when examined (a) within people for specific goals versus (b) between people across their overall goal systems. Goal conflict and harmony were investigated in two studies (N _Total = 849) using multilevel random-intercept cross-lagged panel models. At the within-person level, goal harmony and goal conflict were negatively associated both at a concurrent and cross-lagged level. At the between-person level, goal conflict and goal harmony were not significantly associated. These findings indicate that goal harmony and goal conflict are in tension, on average, in the context of specific goals but not associated when considered across the entire goal system. This research advances our understanding of how people pursue multiple goals.

Most people juggle multiple goals in their daily lives—for example, advancing their career, staying healthy, and spending time with family. Sometimes goals compete with each other (goal conflict; like when working late conflicts with family time), and sometimes they help each other (goal harmony; like when exercising with friends supports both fitness and social goals). Although these are often considered as being situated on different ends of a single continuum, this study investigated whether they are best understood as distinct constructs. Goal interactions were investigated in two ways: (1) examining the conflict and harmony experienced for a specific goal in relation to other goals and (2) looking at people’s overall patterns across all their goals combined. When looking at an individual goal, goal conflict and harmony were in tension, on average; when a goal conflicted more with other goals in the goal system, it hindered other goals other more and vice versa. However, when considering people’s overall goal systems, there was no relation between goal conflict and harmony. This research demonstrates that managing multiple goals is more nuanced than previously considered. When two goals are in harmony, they are less likely to conflict over time. When two goals are in conflict, they are less likely to help each other over time. When considering the typical levels of conflict and harmony a person has amongst all their goals, goal conflict and harmony are not related.

Nostalgia and declinism are often intertwined in the literature. We argue that they share a common reference to the past but differ in their psychological and social implications. Nostalgia entails a personal, meaningful connection to one’s past and contributes to a positive present or optimistic future outlook. Declinism, by contrast, idealizes a societal past and contributes to a negative perception of the present and a pessimistic view of the future. Across five preregistered studies—four cross-sectional and one experimental (ΣN = 2,300)—we empirically distinguished these constructs. Nostalgia positively, whereas declinism negatively, predicted social connectedness (Studies 1–3) and favorable responses to innovative technology such as artificial intelligence and ChatGPT (Studies 2–3). We observed these patterns when assessing nostalgia with the Southampton Nostalgia Scale and the Nostalgia Inventory, whereas no such patterns emerged with the Personal Inventory of Nostalgic Experiences—a scale that instead exhibited a high correlation with declinism (Study 4). Finally, experimentally induced nostalgia increased support for AI research compared to induced declinism (Study 5). The findings clarify theoretical distinctions between nostalgia and declinism, and offer novel insights into their broader psychological and societal consequences.

Nostalgia and declinism are two ways in which individuals relate to the past, but despite being frequently linked in literature, we propose they are distinct psychological experiences with opposite effects. Nostalgia involves a personal, meaningful connection to one’s past, and inspires hope for the future. Declinism, conversely, is defined by an idealization of the past and the belief that things are getting steadily worse. Across five studies, we empirically separated these constructs, showing that nostalgia consistently and positively predicted social connectedness and ensuing favorable responses to innovative technology, such as AI and ChatGPT. Declinism, on the other hand, negatively predicted these same outcomes. These findings clarify that, although both reference the past, nostalgia serves as a positive resource for stepping into the future, whereas declinism generates resistance to innovation.

Extensive knowledge about creative achievements and their association with personality traits, motivation, and cognitive ability has been derived from univariate studies in adult samples. In contrast, research on children’s talent development often focuses narrowly on academic performance, overlooking creative achievements as developmental milestones. To better understand the nomological net of childhood creativity, this study took a comprehensive, multimodal approach to explore predictors of creative activities and (scientific and artistic) creative achievements in N = 431 gifted secondary school students. Using self- and parent-reports, performance tests, and a machine learning approach, over 40 theoretically derived predictors from personality, motivation, and cognitive domains were analyzed. Our results broadly aligned with the pattern of associations from adult samples and revealed domain-specific differences. Important predictors identified by machine learning included openness, creative self-efficacy, artistic and investigative vocational interests, and divergent thinking. Structural equation modeling showed that intellectual curiosity and investigative interests were the strongest predictors of scientific creative achievement, whereas aesthetic sensitivity was the strongest predictor of artistic creative achievement. Creative activities partly mediated the associations. Our findings underscore the multidimensional nature of creativity in gifted adolescents during an important stage of talent development and highlight key factors by distinguishing robust predictors from simple correlates.

Why was this study done? When we talk about talented kids, we often focus on good grades. But creativity in areas like art, music, or writing is also an important talent. While we know a lot about what makes adults creative, less is known about what helps young people achieve creative success. This study aimed to fill that gap. We studied 431 talented secondary school students. We asked them and their parents questions regarding students’ creative activities, creative achievements, personality, and motivation. We also had the students complete tests measuring their creative and cognitive thinking skills. We analyzed over 40 factors using modern methods to see how these pieces fit together to predict real-life creative success. We found that the factors related to young people’s creativity are quite similar to those in adults, and that they depend on the specific type of creativity. Overall, the most important factors included being open to new experiences and aesthetic things, believing in one’s own creative abilities, being interested in creative and scientific work, and being able to think “outside the box”. Interestingly, different factors predicted different types of creativity. For example, a strong sense of intellectual curiosity was one of the best predictors for scientific creativity, such as inventing or exploring new concepts. On the other hand, an appreciation for beauty and art was the strongest predictor for artistic creativity. We also noticed that regularly engaging in creative hobbies helps bridge the gap between these personal traits and major creative achievements. What do these findings mean? This study shows that creativity in teenagers is a complex mix of personality, interests, and skills. By identifying the most important factors, we can better understand how to support young creative talent. These findings can help parents and teachers recognize and nurture the specific strengths that lead to creative success.

Establishing the generalizability of empirical findings is essential for a cumulative science. Kiendl, Wenzel et al. (2025) recently examined sources of variability in goal dimensions, as well as three different ways of calculating variability and the specific personality traits (conscientiousness, neuroticism, and trait self-control) that predict them. We replicate their analyses on two independent datasets with different populations (Canadian university students, N = 401; working adults, N = 343), timeframes (biweekly vs. monthly assessments), number of goals (2–3), and goal dimensions. Across all studies, person-level variance was consistently lowest—goal dimensions vary more across goals and time than across individuals. Results were more similar than different when comparing similar dimensions across studies on variability indices, with notable exceptions. Results for personality predictors (conscientiousness, neuroticism, and trait self-control) of variability somewhat diverged; whereas Kiendl et al. found all examined traits to be predictive of two variability indices each, we found less robust relationships (trait self-control predicted dispersion and instability in study 1; neuroticism predicted dispersion in study 2). These discrepancies may reflect methodological differences including assessment frequency and the specific dimensions measured. Our findings corroborate past research in pointing to the importance of considering person, goal, and time levels in goal research.

We tested whether findings from a previous study would hold up with new participants and different methods. We looked at how people's perceptions of their personal goals—like how important or achievable a goal seems—shift depending on the goal they are asked about, when they are asked, and who they are. Feelings about goals different most goal-to-goal and from one time to the next, and to a lesser degree person to person. Whether personality traits predicted these fluctuations was inconsistent. Inconsistences in findings across studies seemed to depend on small design choices like which questions were asked or how much time passed between check-ins. Future research should test these choices more deliberately to understand what's driving the differences.

Occupational groups differ systematically in their personality profiles, but broad personality traits may not fully capture the contextualized characteristics that differentiate individuals within specialized professions such as teaching. We examined how broad personality traits relate to a taxonomy of teaching-related Social-Emotional characteristics and Instructional competencies (SEI), organized into five domains: Bonding, Regulating, Expressing, Managing, and Innovating (BoREMI). Using data from 8,960 Brazilian teachers, we investigated whether teachers replicate the characteristic Big Five profile reported in prior research, how SEI organize within the broader personality framework, and the extent to which broad traits and their facets account for variance in these teaching-related characteristics. Teachers scored high on Agreeableness and Conscientiousness and low on Negative Emotionality, replicating the occupational personality profile observed in previous work. Joint factor analyses supported a six-factor solution comprising the Big Five plus an additional teaching-specific factor capturing shared variance across SEI. Personality facets explained 27% of the variance in SEI, indicating that these characteristics reflect substantial variance beyond broad dispositional traits. These findings suggest that teaching-related characteristics are systematically related to personality, yet not reducible to broad trait dimensions, and that occupationally contextualized assessments capture construct-relevant variance that generic personality taxonomies leave unaccounted for.

We all have a personality a set of stable traits that shape how we think, feel, and behave across situations. Psychologists often describe personality using the Big Five: Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Open-Mindedness, and Negative Emotionality. But when it comes to understanding what makes a good teacher, do these broad traits tell the whole story? In this study, we examined whether personality alone is sufficient to describe the characteristics that matter in teaching, or whether a more tailored framework is needed. We developed a taxonomy of Social-Emotional characteristics and Instructional competencies (SEI) specifically designed to capture how teachers bond with students, regulate their own emotions, communicate and manage behavior, organize learning, and innovate in their practice: the BoREMI framework. Using data from 8,960 Brazilian public school teachers, we first confirmed that teachers, as a group, show a recognizable personality profile: they tend to score high on Agreeableness and Conscientiousness and low on Negative Emotionality. This pattern mirrors findings from Western countries, suggesting that similar types of people are drawn to and shaped by the teaching profession worldwide. We then examined how the SEI characteristics relate to personality. While the two are clearly connected, the teaching-specific characteristics capture meaningful variation that personality measures miss. When analyzed together, the SEI scales formed a distinct sixth factor alongside the Big Five, reflecting a coherent set of teaching-relevant competencies that cannot be reduced to general personality traits. These findings suggest that understanding individual differences among teachers requires frameworks that go beyond general personality. Contextualized assessments like BoREMI capture something real and distinct, and may ultimately provide a more useful basis for teacher training, professional development, and support.