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

doi:10.1037/amp0000676

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 journal › Letter › 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 (US)
Pages (from-to)	731-732
Number of pages	2
Journal	American Psychologist
Volume	75
Issue number	5
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000676
State	Published - Jul 2020

Keywords

Development
Interventions
Longitudinal
Personality
Policy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

General Psychology

Online availability

10.1037/amp0000676

Library availability

Discover UIUC Full Text

Cite this

@article{86473c8d9a7d4e0785333bc28cf13d39,

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

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2020 American Psychological Association.",

year = "2020",

month = jul,

doi = "10.1037/amp0000676",

language = "English (US)",

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, Wiebke

AU - Hill, Patrick L.

AU - Back, Mitja D.

AU - Denissen, Jaap J.A.

AU - Hennecke, Marie

AU - Hopwood, Christopher J.

AU - Jokela, Markus

AU - Kandler, Christian

AU - Lucas, Richard E.

AU - Luhmann, Maike

AU - Orth, Ulrich

AU - Wagner, Jenny

AU - Wrzus, Cornelia

AU - Zimmermann, Johannes

AU - Roberts, Brent

PY - 2020/7

Y1 - 2020/7

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

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.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

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Online availability

Library availability

Related links

Fingerprint

Cite this