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

Wiebke Bleidorn, Patrick L. Hill, Mitja D. Back, Jaap J.A. Denissen, Marie Hennecke, Christopher J. Hopwood, Markus Jokela, Christian Kandler, Richard E. Lucas, Maike Luhmann, Ulrich Orth, Jenny Wagner, Cornelia Wrzus, Johannes Zimmermann, Brent Roberts

Research output: Contribution to journalLetter

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 languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)731-732
Number of pages2
JournalAmerican Psychologist
Volume75
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2020

Keywords

  • Development
  • Interventions
  • Longitudinal
  • Personality
  • Policy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Why stop at two opinions? Reply to McCrae (2020)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    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, 75(5), 731-732. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000676