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

[img] Text
Bleidorn et al 2020 AP.pdf - Published Version
Restricted to registered users only
Available under License Publisher holds Copyright.

Download (153kB)
[img]
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.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

07 Faculty of Human Sciences > Institute of Psychology > Developmental Psychology

UniBE Contributor:

Orth, Ulrich

Subjects:

100 Philosophy > 150 Psychology

ISSN:

0003-066X

Publisher:

American Psychological Association

Language:

English

Submitter:

Ulrich Orth

Date Deposited:

30 Jul 2020 12:21

Last Modified:

05 Dec 2022 15:39

Publisher DOI:

10.1037/amp0000676

BORIS DOI:

10.7892/boris.145477

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/145477

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback