The Dark Side of Political Ambition – Scott McGreal (Unique—Like Everybody Else)

People high in Machiavellian traits enjoy campaigning for political office more than other people, while those with psychopathic traits find campaigning unappealing.

Sexism and the Dark Side of Personality – Scott McGreal (Unique—Like Everybody Else)

A study finds that "dark triad" traits are related to sexist attitudes. Does this mean a sexist society foster dark traits? The truth may be much more surprising.

8 Words Psychologists Have Almost Ruined6 – David Funder (funderstorms)

Psychology has almost ruined some perfectly innocent words. In each case, the first step was to take a useful word from the English language and give it a technical meaning that did not exactly or, in some cases, even approximately, match what it meant to begin with.  The second step – and this one is crucial – was to forget that this was done, and act as if the word still had its original meaning. The result: widespread confusion. Examples, starting with the most obvious: Significant (adj.): What it originally meant: sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy[1]. How psychology uses the word: As used in “significance testing,” this word actually, and merely, means not-random. The most succinct – and accurate – interpretation of the meaning of a “significant finding” that I’ve seen is “there’s not nothing going on.” Why it’s a problem: An undergraduate psychology student, having just taken a stats course, phones home one evening and says, “Mom, something significant happened today!” Mom: “Oh my goodness, Sweetie, what do you mean?” Undergraduate: “I mean, there’s less than a 5% chance that what happened was completely random!!! Continue reading

Robust Findings in Personality Psychology – Brent Roberts (pigee)

Scientific personality psychology has had a bit of a renaissance in the last few decades, emerging from a period of deep skepticism and subsequent self-reflection to a period  where we believe there are robust findings in our field. The problem is that many people, and scientists, don’t follow scientific personality psychology and remain blithely unaware of the field’s accomplishments. In fact, it is quite common to do silly things like equate the field of scientific personality psychology with the commodity that is the MBTI. With this situation in mind, I recently asked a subset of personality psychologists to help  identify what they believed to be robust findings in personality psychology.  You will find the product of that effort below. We are not assuming that we’ve identified all of the robust findings.  In fact, we’d like you to vote on each one to see whether these are consensually defined “robust findings.”  Moreover, we’d love you to comment and suggest other candidates for consideration. All we ask is that you characterize the finding and suggest some research that backs up your suggestion.  We’ve kept things pretty loose to this point, but the items below can be characterized as findings that replicate across labs and have a critical mass of research that is typically summarized in one or more meta-analyses. We are open to suggestions about making the inclusion criteria more stringent. Continue reading

Lessons we’ve learned about writing the empirical journal article – Brent Roberts (pigee)

How about a little blast from the past?  In rooting around in an old hard drive searching for Pat Hill’s original CV [1], I came across a document that we wrote way back in 2006 on how to write more effectively. It was a compilation of the collective wisdom at that time of Roberts, Fraley, and Diener. It was interesting to read after 13 years. Fraley and I have updated our opinions a bit. We both thought it would be good to share if only for the documentation of our pre-blogging, pre-twitter thought processes. Manuscript Acronyms from Hell:  Lessons We’ve Learned on Writing the Empirical Research Article  By Brent Roberts (with substantial help from Ed Diener and Chris Fraley) Originally written sometime in 2006 Updated 2019 thoughts in blue Here are a set of subtle lessons that we’ve culled from our experience writing journal articles.  They are intended as a short list of questions that you can ask yourself each time you complete an article.  For example, before you submit your paper to a journal, ask yourself whether you have created a clear need for the study in the introduction, or whether everything is parallel, etc.  This list is by no means complete, but we do hope that it is useful. Continue reading

Who Acts Out Aggressive Fantasies? – Scott McGreal (Unique—Like Everybody Else)

Fantasies about hurting people may be a risk factor for aggressive behavior in some people, but not others. This might depend on underlying personality traits.

The Person and the Situation in Game of Thrones and Society – Scott McGreal (Unique—Like Everybody Else)

I continue my critique of a misguided attempt to apply situationism, in the name of the fundamental attribution error, to the popular TV show Game of Thrones.

Why is the Fundamental Attribution Error So Confusing? – Scott McGreal (Unique—Like Everybody Else)

The fundamental attribution error is often misunderstood; one sociologist has even attempted to apply it to Game of Thrones with dubious results.

Time For A Change At SPSP Journals – Rich Lucas (The Desk Reject)

Disclaimer: This post reflects my own opinions and is not an official statement of policy at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. I received permission from SPSP’s Executive Director to discuss the outcomes of the recent SPSP board meeting. Last week, I went to St. Louis to attend my final meeting as member at large for the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. Board members and elected officers use these meetings to discuss new policies and to make decisions about the society’s goals and priorities.

status quoi? part iii – Simine Vazire (sometimes i'm wrong)

Oryx1

i wanted to write a series of blog posts featuring a few of the people i've met who are challenging the conventional wisdom and inspiring others.  but instead of telling you what i think of them, i wanted to give them a chance to share their insights in their own words.  i contacted a few early career researchers i've had the chance to get to know who have impressed me, and who are not affiliated with me or my lab (though i am collaborating on group projects with some of them).  there are many more role models than those featured here, and i encourage you to join me in amplifying them and their messages, however you can. i asked each of these people "what are the blind spots in your field - what issues should we be tackling that we aren't paying enough attention to?"  here are their answers, in three parts, which i will post in three separate blog posts this week. find part i of the series here (with a longer introduction) find part ii of the series here   Part 3: Jackie Thompson, Joe Hilgard, Sophia Crüwell Jackie Thompson To me, failures of communication are the biggest blind spot in science. Continue reading