Traits and trade-offs are insufficient for evolutionary personality psychology

Comments on the article by D. Nettle, who has clearly shown that evolutionary psychologists need to focus more attention on individual differences, not just species-typical universals. Such differences are not mere "noise," and evolutionary theory will gain by understanding how they are produced and maintained. However, by focusing on personality traits and the five-factor personality model, Nettle left unaddressed many of the most important aspects of human personality. An evolutionary psychology of personality must ultimately explain not just trait differences but also differences in personal goals, values, motives, identities, and life narratives--essential elements of human individuality and functionality. K. M. Sheldon et al suggest four reasons why traits and the five-factor personality model do not provide an optimal approach for explaining the evolution of personality: (a) As constructs, traits provide little purchase for explaining the causes of behavior; (b) trait concepts do not acknowledge or explain people's variations around their own baselines, variations that are likely crucial for adaptation; (c) traits do not explain or even describe true human uniqueness, i.e. the ways in which a person is different from everybody else; and (d) traits do not explain personality from the inside, by considering what people are trying to do in their lives. In raising these issues Sheldon et al are suggesting that the important question for evolutionary personality study is not why people fall at different points on a continuum regarding traits x, y, and z, but rather why each person is inevitably unique while still sharing the same evolved psychology.     

Psychoanalysis and change: Between curiosity and faith1

The IPA recently announced that it now recognized three sessions per week as a valid frequency for psychoanalytic treatment. From the debate that has ensued over the problems this decision is expected to cause, important insights can be gained into the current crisis of identity affl icting psychoanalysis. Technical aspects of therapy that were once considered peripheral have gradually acquired the status of core theoretical parameters. Freud was a man of science who was concerned with universal human phenomena. His disagreements with followers such as Jung and Adler centred on the major theoretical issues of the sexual nature of the libido and the existence of the unconscious. It is also interesting to note that Freud never distinguished between psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic psychotherapy. Where he did make a distinction, it was between psychoanalysis and the consciousness‐based psychotherapies, or those that used suggestion as a major tool. When the point has been reached where the frequency of sessions or the use of a couch is used to defi ne whether a treatment is psychoanalytic, some consideration of whether the right direction is being pursued is called for. A serious risk is being run of sacrifi cing our spirit of curiosity for the sake of tradition, becoming more concerned with repeating the formal aspects of practice than with the real purpose of psychoanalysis, the investigation of the most profound workings of human nature.     

The Prevalence and Prevention of Crosstalk: A Multi-Institutional Study

It is a common problem in psychology subject pools for past study participants to inform future participants of key experimental details (also known as crosstalk). Previous research (Edlund, Sagarin, Skowronski, Johnson, & Kutter, 2009) demonstrated that a combined classroom and laboratory treatment could significantly reduce crosstalk. The present investigation tested a laboratory-only treatment for the prevention of crosstalk at five universities, along with institutional-level moderators of crosstalk. Results indicated the presence of crosstalk at all universities and that the laboratory-based treatment was effective in reducing crosstalk. Importantly, crosstalk rates were higher (but successfully neutralized) in research pools with higher research credit requirements. Therefore, this research provides valuable guidance regarding crosstalk prevalence and its minimization by researchers.     

Effects of consumer embarrassment on shopping basket size and value: A study of the millennial consumer

This paper examines how the emotion of embarrassment affects shopping behavior in a retail setting. In a series of three studies, we explore the phenomenon of “masking,” which is defined as a coping strategy used by shoppers when experiencing embarrassment related to a purchase task. Study 1 provides consumer insights into masking behaviors among Millennials. Study 2 empirically examines degrees of anticipated embarrassment associated with purchasing a variety of personal care products and uses a controlled experiment to test the impact of embarrassment on the size of the shopping basket (number of items purchased) and the value of the shopping basket. Study 3 examines basket size and value with respect to complementary and counterbalancing products, and compares Millennial with non‐Millennial consumers. Collectively, this research indicates that both Millennial and non‐Millennials use masking as a coping strategy for a variety of products due to anticipated embarrassment, translating into enhanced basket sizes and values. This effect appears to be moderated by one's innate susceptibility to embarrassment. This study contributes to our understanding of how the emotion of embarrassment influences shopping basket composition in terms of its value and size. It also provides insightful findings relevant to retail practitioners. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Establishing versus preserving impressions: Predicting success in the multiple audience problem

People sometimes seek to convey discrepant impressions of themselves to different audiences simultaneously. Research suggests people are generally successful in this “multiple audience problem.” Adding to previous research, the current research sought to examine factors that may limit this success by measuring social anxiety and placing participants into situations requiring them to either establish or preserve multiple impressions simultaneously. In general, participants were more successful when preserving previously conveyed impressions than when establishing impressions for the first time. In contrast, social anxiety did not affect multiple audience success. In all, this research offers valuable insight into potential challenges that people face in many social situations.