A Plea for Studying Qualitative Individual Differences by Default

Isabel Thielmann

doi:10.5334/joc.172

Abstract

I see great potential in the approach proposed by Rouder and Haaf. First, using an example from unethical decision making, I demonstrate that considering quantitative individual differences alone can make us overlook important psychological phenomena that are only visible at the individual level. Thus, the study of quantitative individual differences should, by default, be complemented by investigation of qualitative individual differences. Second, having powerful tools to study qualitative individual differences in cognition has great potential to advance personality science. Recently, personality psychologists are increasingly working towards obtaining a better understanding of the processes that underlie the expression of personality in behavior. The toolbox provided by Rouder and Haaf may add to this research in meaningful ways.

References

Abeler, J., Nosenzo, D., & Raymond, C. (2019). Preferences for truth-telling. Econometrica, 87(4), 1115–1153. DOI: 10.3982/ECTA14673
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2020). Objections to the HEXACO model of personality structure—and why those objections fail. European Journal of Personality, 34(4), 492–510. DOI: 10.1002/per.2242
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Back, M. D., & Vazire, S. (2015). The social consequences of personality: Six suggestions for future research. European Journal of Personality, 29(2), 296–307. DOI: 10.1002/per.1998
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Baumert, A., Schmitt, M., Perugini, M., Johnson, W., Blum, G. S., Borkenau, P., Costantini, G., Denissen, J. J. A., Fleeson, W., Grafton, B., Jayawickreme, E., Kurzius, E., MacLeod, C., Miller, L. C., Read, S. J., Roberts, B. W., Robinson, M. D., Wood, D., & Wrzus, C. (2017). Integrating personality structure, personality process, and personality development. European Journal of Personality, 31, 503–528. DOI: 10.1002/per.2115
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76, 169–217. DOI: 10.1086/259394
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gerlach, P., Teodorescu, K., & Hertwig, R. (2019). The truth about lies: A meta-analysis on dishonest behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 145(1), 1–44. DOI: 10.1037/bul0000174
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hilbig, B. E., & Thielmann, I. (2017). Does everyone have a price? On the role of payoff magnitude for ethical decision making. Cognition, 163, 15–25. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.02.011
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190127
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Quirin, M., Robinson, M. D., Rauthmann, J. F., Kuhl, J., Read, S. J., Tops, M., & DeYoung, C. G. (2020). The Dynamics of Personality Approach (DPA): 20 tenets for uncovering the causal mechanisms of personality. European Journal of Personality, 34(6), 947–968. DOI: 10.1002/per.2295
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Thielmann, I., & Hilbig, B. E. (2019). No gain without pain: The psychological costs of dishonesty. Journal of Economic Psychology, 71, 126–137. DOI: 10.1016/j.joep.2018.06.001
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zettler, I., Thielmann, I., Hilbig, B. E., & Moshagen, M. (2020). The nomological net of the HEXACO model of personality: A large-scale meta-analytic investigation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(3), 723–760. DOI: 10.1177/1745691619895036
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article

A Plea for Studying Qualitative Individual Differences by Default

Abstract

Paradigm

My account