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

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 (2020). Why stop at two opinions? Reply to McCrae (2020). American psychologist, 75(5), pp. 731-732. American Psychological Association 10.1037/amp0000676

	Text Bleidorn et al 2020 AP.pdf - Published Version Restricted to registered users only Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (153kB)
Preview	Text Bleidorn et al 2020 AP.pdf - Accepted Version Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (94kB) | Preview

McCrae (2020) argues that it is premature to explore interventions focused on personality change. In his commentary, he suggests that interventions should only be promoted 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 policy makers would benefit from considering the additional opinion of personality scientists.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

224 since deposited on 30 Jul 2020
13 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item