Personality Psychology and Economics

This paper explores the power of personality traits both as predictors and as causes of academic and economic success, health, and criminal activity. Measured personality is interpreted as a construct derived from an economic model of preferences, constraints, and information. Evidence is reviewed about the "situational specificity" of personality traits and preferences. An extreme version of the situationist view claims that there are no stable personality traits or preference parameters that persons carry across different situations. Those who hold this view claim that personality psychology has little relevance for economics. The biological and evolutionary origins of personality traits are explored. Personality measurement systems and relationships among the measures used by psychologists are examined. The predictive power of personality measures is compared with the predictive power of measures of cognition captured by IQ and achievement tests. For many outcomes, personality measures are just as predictive as cognitive measures, even after controlling for family background and cognition. Moreover, standard measures of cognition are heavily influenced by personality traits and incentives. Measured personality traits are positively correlated over the life cycle. However, they are not fixed and can be altered by experience and investment. Intervention studies, along with studies in biology and neuroscience, establish a causal basis for the observed effect of personality traits on economic and social outcomes. Personality traits are more malleable over the life cycle compared to cognition, which becomes highly rank stable around age 10. Interventions that change personality are promising avenues for addressing poverty and disadvantage.personality, behavioral economics, cognitive traits, wages, economic success, human development, person-situation debate

The unequal power relation in the final interpretation

This article addresses the power relation in qualitative research and especially the importance of taking into consideration the problematic aspects of the power relation when executing the final interpretation of qualitative research. The methodology literature examines the unequal power relation in qualitative research by focusing on how society has become an interview society and on the lack of equality in interviews. Although the literature recommends being aware of asymmetry between research participants, it fails to look at how to address the final interpretation of qualitative research if the interpretation also takes the unequal power relation into account. Consequently, interpreting the researched in a respectful manner is difficult. This article demonstrates the necessity of increasing awareness of the unequal power relation by posing, discussing and, to some extent answering, three methodological questions inspired by meta-theory that are significant for qualitative research and qualitative researchers to reflect on. This article concludes that respectful interpretation and consciously paying attention to the unequal power relation in the final interpretation require decentring the subject, dissociating from the ideal of intersubjectivity, being descriptive instead of normative, accepting the unconquerable distance between the researcher and the researched and looking at the entire research process and analyses as an undeniable coproduction and interpretation

En semantisk rollemodel

”[Der findes ikke abstract til denne artikel]

Public communication campaigns as mundane category

This article examines the public connection and understanding of public communication campaigns. Public communication campaigns are widespread, but the audience dimension of the campaign category itself is still a blind spot in research. Drawing on focus group interviews and a survey among Danish citizens, the article shows that public campaigns are recognized as a mundane communicative category. Moreover, drawing on theories of public connection and governmentality, we show how citizens receive and resist, accept and negotiate public campaigns.&nbsp

Personality Psychology and Economics

This paper explores the power of personality traits both as predictors and as causes of academic and economic success, health, and criminal activity. Measured personality is interpreted as a construct derived from an economic model of preferences, constraints, and information. Evidence is reviewed about the “situational specificity” of personality traits and preferences. An extreme version of the situationist view claims that there are no stable personality traits or preference parameters that persons carry across different situations. Those who hold this view claim that personality psychology has little relevance for economics. The biological and evolutionary origins of personality traits are explored. Personality measurement systems and relationships among the measures used by psychologists are examined. The predictive power of personality measures is compared with the predictive power of measures of cognition captured by IQ and achievement tests. For many outcomes, personality measures are just as predictive as cognitive measures, even after controlling for family background and cognition. Moreover, standard measures of cognition are heavily influenced by personality traits and incentives. Measured personality traits are positively correlated over the life cycle. However, they are not fixed and can be altered by experience and investment. Intervention studies, along with studies in biology and neuroscience, establish a causal basis for the observed effect of personality traits on economic and social outcomes. Personality traits are more malleable over the life cycle compared to cognition, which becomes highly rank stable around age 10. Interventions that change personality are promising avenues for addressing poverty and disadvantage.