Explore the vast range of titles available.

The Handbook of Personality and Self-Regulation integrates scholarly research on self-regulation in the personality, developmental, and social psychology traditions for a broad audience of social and behavioral scientists interested in the processes by which people control, or fail to control, their own behavior. * Examines self-regulation as it influences and is influenced by basic personality processes in normal adults * Offers 21 original contributions from an internationally respected group of scholars in the fields of personality and self-regulation * Explores the causes and consequences of inadequate self-regulation and the means by which self-regulation might be improved * Integrates empirical findings on basic personality traits with findings inspired by emerging models of self-regulation * Provides a comprehensive, up-to-date, and stimulating view of the field for students and researchers in a wide range of disciplines

People who have high levels of H are sincere and modest; people who have low levels are deceitful and pretentious. The \"H\" in the H factor stands for \"Honesty-Humility,\" one of the six basic dimensions of the human personality.   It isn't intuitively obvious that traits of honesty and humility go hand in hand, and until very recently the H factor hadn't been recognized as a basic dimension of personality. But scientific evidence shows that traits of honesty and humility form a unified group of personality traits, separate from those of the other five groups identified several decades ago. This book, written by the discoverers of the H factor, explores the scientific findings that show the importance of this personality dimension in various aspects of people's lives: their approaches to money, power, and sex; their inclination to commit crimes or obey the law; their attitudes about society, politics, and religion; and their choice of friends and spouse. Finally, the book provides ways of identifying people who are low in the H factor, as well as advice on how to raise one's own level of H.

Gordon W. Allport (1937) considered the coherence of personality to be a matter of degree and, as such, an individual difference. Although considered by some to be the \"central, unique charge\" of personality psychology (Cervone & Shoda, 1999, p. 3), the study of personality coherence has been dispersed across different theoretical communities. We review how personality coherence has been defined and measured within the following five contemporary theoretical communities: the multivariate community (who focus upon the individual's profile of global trait dispositions), the social-cognitive community (who focus upon the individual's contextualized self-structures), the personological community (who focus upon the individual's unique and ongoing life story), the cybernetic community (who focus upon the individual's goal hierarchy), and the organismic community (who focus upon the individual's sense of self). We conclude by reflecting upon the extent to which the five perspectives converge upon an underlying self-epistemic function. Gordon W. Allport (1937) croyait que la cohérence de la personnalité se mesurait en degrés et, ainsi, qu'elle constituait une caractéristique individuelle. Bien qu'elle soit considérée par certains comme étant la « charge centrale, unique » de la psychologie de la personnalité (Cervone & Shoda, 1999, p. 3), plusieurs communautés théoriques se sont consacrées à l'étude de la cohérence de la personnalité. Dans cet article, nous passons en revue de quelles façons cinq grands courants de pensée définissent et évaluent la cohérence de la personnalité : la communauté de l'analyse multivariée (axée sur le profil individuel de l'ensemble des dispositions caractérielles), la communauté sociocognitive (axée sur les structures individuelles contextualisées); la communauté de la personnologie (axée sur le récit de vie unique de l'individu), la communauté de la cybernétique (axée sur la hiérarchie des buts de l'individu), et la communauté organismique (axée sur le sens de soi de l'individu). L'article se termine par une réflexion pour déterminer dans quelle mesure les cinq perspectives convergent vers une fonction autoépistémique sous-jacente.

Released in 2012 as a free, easily administered measure of personality pathology domains and traits as described in the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders, the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) has spawned interest—and a considerable amount of research—since its publication. Rather than trying to match an individual's personal experience to preestablished diagnostic categories, use of the PID-5 in assessment calls for something of a paradigm shift—developing a profile unique to each patient and their experiences and behaviors. This new book delves into the background of the PID-5 and provides clinical and research guidance on its application. After reviewing the blossoming literature on the PID-5 and evidence for its use, the authors examine • The validity of the PID-5 in different populations, including adults, children, and non-U.S. populations • Special applications of the PID-5, including its relation to ICD-11 and use in forensic constructs • The relationship of the PID-5 with other measures, such as the Five Factor Model measures and the Personality Assessment Inventory • The role of the PID-5 in developing tailored interventions and prevention strategies, both psychotherapeutic and pharmacological Standout features of this guide include numerous and easily referenced tables throughout, clinical vignettes that help illustrate the PID-5 personality profiles, and an appendix with norms and scoring reference materials. Particularly useful for both clinical psychologists and research psychiatrists, Understanding the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) is a concise, convenient, and indispensable resource for all those interested in an individualized approach to the management and treatment of personality pathologies.

Humans seamlessly infer the expanse of personality traits from others’ facial appearance. These facial impressions are highly intercor-related within a structure known as “face trait space.” Research has extensively documented the facial features that underlie face impressions, thus outlining a bottom-up fixed architecture of face impressions, which cannot account for important ways impressions vary across perceivers. Classic theory in impression formation emphasized that perceivers use their lay conceptual beliefs about how personality traits correlate to form initial trait impressions, for instance, where trustworthiness of a target may inform impressions of their intelligence to the extent one believes the two traits are related. This considered, we explore the possibility that this lay “conceptual trait space”—how perceivers believe personality traits correlate in others—plays a role in face impressions, tethering face impressions to one another, thus shaping face trait space. In study 1, we found that conceptual and face trait space explain considerable variance in each other. In study 2, we found that participants with stronger conceptual associations between two traits judged those traits more similarly in faces. Importantly, using a face image classification task, we found in study 3 that participants with stronger conceptual associations between two traits used more similar facial features to make those two face trait impressions. Together, these findings suggest lay beliefs of how personality traits correlate may underlie trait impressions, and thus face trait space. This implies face impressions are not only derived bottom up from facial features, but also shaped by our conceptual beliefs.

Classical psychometrics held that scores on a personality measure were determined by the trait assessed and random measurement error. A new view proposes a much richer and more complex model that includes trait variance at multiple levels of a hierarchy of traits and systematic biases shaped by the implicit personality theory of the respondent. The model has implications for the optimal length and content of scales and for the use of scales intended to correct for evaluative bias; further, it suggests that personality assessments should supplement self-reports with informant ratings. The model also has implications for the very nature of personality traits.

This innovative and adventurous work, now in paperback, uses broadly feminist and postmodernist modes of analysis to explore what motivates damaging attitudes and practices towards disability. The book argues for the significance of the psycho-social imaginary and suggests a way forward in disability's queering of normative paradigms.

Past research has shown that hostile schemas and adverse experiences predict the hostile attributional bias. This research proposes that seemingly nonhostile beliefs (implicit theories about the malleability of personality) may also play a role in shaping it. Study 1 meta-analytically summarized 11 original tests of this hypothesis (N = 1,659), and showed that among diverse adolescents aged 13–16 a fixed or entity theory about personality traits predicted greater hostile attributional biases, which mediated an effect on aggressive desires. Study 2 experimentally changed adolescents' implicit theories toward a malleable or incremental view and showed a reduction in hostile intent attributions. Study 3 delivered an incremental theory intervention that reduced hostile intent attributions and aggressive desires over an 8-month period.

With the rapid global increase in motor vehicle usage, road traffic injuries have emerged as the leading cause of injury-related deaths worldwide. Within the complex traffic system, although factors such as vehicle performance and road conditions significantly influence driving safety, the driver’s personality traits remain a critical determinant of traffic accidents. Consequently, exploring the intricate relationship between driving behavior patterns and personality traits is essential for understanding the underlying causes of traffic injuries and developing effective intervention strategies. Grounded in the theoretical framework of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), this study systematically examines the interaction between personality traits and driving behavior. Through an empirical analysis of driving behavior data, this research makes several notable contributions. First, it introduces the “Six Driving Behavioral Facets,” a multidimensional framework for analyzing the relationship between personality traits and driving behavior. Second, the study employs the “inverse chi-square test” to uncover latent patterns in otherwise non-significant results. Using the K-modes clustering algorithm, this study identified significant imbalances in the distribution of MBTI personality dimensions across eight clusters, particularly in the Thinking-Feeling (T-F) dimension. For example, in Cluster 1, Thinking (T) individuals accounted for 10.84% of the total population, compared to 15.09% for Feeling (F) individuals, while in Cluster 5, T individuals represented 17.48%, compared to 10.53% for F individuals. Such pronounced differences in personality distributions across clusters highlight the relevance of MBTI traits in shaping driving behavior patterns. These findings provide theoretical support for personalized traffic management strategies and the optimization of autonomous driving systems.

Using recent research, I argue that beliefs lie at the heart of personality and adaptive functioning and that they give us unique insight into how personality and functioning can be changed. I focus on two classes of beliefs-beliefs about the malleability of self-attributes and expectations of social acceptance versus rejection--and show how modest interventions have brought about important real-world changes. I conclude by suggesting that beliefs are central to the way in which people package their experiences and carry them forward, and that beliefs should play a more central role in the study of personality.