Olivia E Atherton, Joanne M Chung, Kelci Harris, Julia M Rohrer, David M Condon, Felix Cheung, Simine Vazire, Richard E Lucas, M Brent Donnellan, Daniel K Mroczek, Christopher J Soto, Stephen Antonoplis, Rodica Ioana Damian, David C Funder, Sanjay Srivastava, R Chris Fraley, Hayley Jach, Brent W Roberts, Luke D Smillie, Jessie Sun, Jennifer L Tackett, Sara J Weston, K Paige Harden, Katherine S Corker
{"title":"为什么人格心理学在可信度革命中扮演了巨大的角色?","authors":"Olivia E Atherton, Joanne M Chung, Kelci Harris, Julia M Rohrer, David M Condon, Felix Cheung, Simine Vazire, Richard E Lucas, M Brent Donnellan, Daniel K Mroczek, Christopher J Soto, Stephen Antonoplis, Rodica Ioana Damian, David C Funder, Sanjay Srivastava, R Chris Fraley, Hayley Jach, Brent W Roberts, Luke D Smillie, Jessie Sun, Jennifer L Tackett, Sara J Weston, K Paige Harden, Katherine S Corker","doi":"10.5964/ps.6001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Personality is not the most popular subfield of psychology. But, in one way or another, personality psychologists have played an outsized role in the ongoing \"credibility revolution\" in psychology. Not only have individual personality psychologists taken on visible roles in the movement, but our field's practices and norms have now become models for other fields to emulate (or, for those who share Baumeister's (2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.02.003) skeptical view of the consequences of increasing rigor, a model for what to avoid). In this article we discuss some unique features of our field that may have placed us in an ideal position to be leaders in this movement. We do so from a subjective perspective, describing our impressions and opinions about possible explanations for personality psychology's disproportionate role in the credibility revolution. We also discuss some ways in which personality psychology remains less-than-optimal, and how we can address these flaws.</p>","PeriodicalId":74421,"journal":{"name":"Personality science","volume":"2 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9008744/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why Has Personality Psychology Played an Outsized Role in the Credibility Revolution?\",\"authors\":\"Olivia E Atherton, Joanne M Chung, Kelci Harris, Julia M Rohrer, David M Condon, Felix Cheung, Simine Vazire, Richard E Lucas, M Brent Donnellan, Daniel K Mroczek, Christopher J Soto, Stephen Antonoplis, Rodica Ioana Damian, David C Funder, Sanjay Srivastava, R Chris Fraley, Hayley Jach, Brent W Roberts, Luke D Smillie, Jessie Sun, Jennifer L Tackett, Sara J Weston, K Paige Harden, Katherine S Corker\",\"doi\":\"10.5964/ps.6001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Personality is not the most popular subfield of psychology. But, in one way or another, personality psychologists have played an outsized role in the ongoing \\\"credibility revolution\\\" in psychology. Not only have individual personality psychologists taken on visible roles in the movement, but our field's practices and norms have now become models for other fields to emulate (or, for those who share Baumeister's (2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.02.003) skeptical view of the consequences of increasing rigor, a model for what to avoid). In this article we discuss some unique features of our field that may have placed us in an ideal position to be leaders in this movement. We do so from a subjective perspective, describing our impressions and opinions about possible explanations for personality psychology's disproportionate role in the credibility revolution. We also discuss some ways in which personality psychology remains less-than-optimal, and how we can address these flaws.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74421,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Personality science\",\"volume\":\"2 \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9008744/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Personality science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.6001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.6001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Why Has Personality Psychology Played an Outsized Role in the Credibility Revolution?
Personality is not the most popular subfield of psychology. But, in one way or another, personality psychologists have played an outsized role in the ongoing "credibility revolution" in psychology. Not only have individual personality psychologists taken on visible roles in the movement, but our field's practices and norms have now become models for other fields to emulate (or, for those who share Baumeister's (2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.02.003) skeptical view of the consequences of increasing rigor, a model for what to avoid). In this article we discuss some unique features of our field that may have placed us in an ideal position to be leaders in this movement. We do so from a subjective perspective, describing our impressions and opinions about possible explanations for personality psychology's disproportionate role in the credibility revolution. We also discuss some ways in which personality psychology remains less-than-optimal, and how we can address these flaws.