To Challenge the Morning Lark and the Night Owl: Using Smartphone Sensing Data to Investigate Day–Night Behaviour Patterns

For decades, day–night patterns in behaviour have been investigated by asking people about their sleep–wake timing, their diurnal activity patterns, and their sleep duration. We demonstrate that the increasing digitalization of lifestyle offers new possibilities for research to investigate day–night patterns and related traits with the help of behavioural data. Using smartphone sensing, we collected in vivo data from 597 participants across several weeks and extracted behavioural day–night pattern indicators. Using this data, we explored three popular research topics. First, we focused on individual differences in day–night patterns by investigating whether ‘morning larks’ and ‘night owls’ manifest in smartphone-sensed behavioural indicators. Second, we examined whether personality traits are related to day–night patterns. Finally, exploring social jetlag, we investigated whether traits and work weekly day–night behaviours influence day–night patterns on weekends. Our findings highlight that behavioural data play an essential role in understanding daily routines and their relations to personality traits. We discuss how psychological research can integrate new behavioural approaches to study personality.     

Semantic interference in the picture-word interference task: Is there a pre-lexical,conceptual contribution to the effect?

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review - Picture naming takes longer in the presence of a semantic-categorically related distractor word compared to an unrelated distractor word. This semantic...     

Academic competence and affect self-concepts in elementary school students: Social and dimensional comparisons

Social Psychology of Education - Academic self-concepts are important correlates and predictors of successful scholastic learning. According to the internal/external frame of reference (I/E)...     

Why leave the teaching profession? A longitudinal approach to the prevalence and persistence of teacher turnover intentions

Social Psychology of Education - Teacher turnover has been recognized as a significant problem in the education worldwide. This study focuses on exploring reasons behind the turnover intentions,...     

Bullying in university between peers and by personnel: cultural variation in prevalence,forms, and gender differences in four countries

Social Psychology of Education - This study reports results from cross-cultural comparisons of (a) the frequency of university students’ experiences of bullying victimization and perpetration...     

Seeing red? Colour biases of foraging birds are context dependent

Animal Cognition - Colours are commonly used as visual cues when measuring animals’ cognitive abilities. However, animals can have innate biases towards certain colours that depend on...     

Possession and Applicability of Signature Character Strengths: What Is Essential for Well-Being,Work Engagement,and Burnout?

Signature character strengths can foster health-related outcomes in work and private life, thus being particularly important for endangered occupational groups like physicians. However, situational circumstances need to allow character strengths demonstration (applicability) first to enable their application. Therefore, this study addresses the role of (1) applicability of signature character strengths in work and private life beyond their possession and (2) relationships with well-being, work engagement, and burnout dimensions (emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment). Hospital physicians (N = 274) completed an online survey examining their signature character strengths and applicability, well-being, work engagement, and burnout dimensions. The top-five individual signature character strengths were fairness, honesty, judgment, kindness, and love. Hierarchical multiple linear regressions revealed that the possession as well as the applicability of signature character strengths was important in work and private life, but to different degrees. Possessing fairness, honesty, or kindness indicated significant positive relations with subjective well-being, whereas judgment and kindness seemed to negatively interact with reduced personal accomplishment. Hospital physicians’ applicability of fairness, honesty, judgment, and love was particularly essential for their psychological well-being and work engagement, whereas the applicability of fairness (reduced personal accomplishment) and judgment (emotional exhaustion, depersonalization) at work interacted negatively with the respective outcomes. Therefore, creating awareness for individual signature character strengths as well as providing applicability in hospitals and private life could be a promising approach to improve physicians’ well-being and consequently patient care as well as the performance of the health-care system in general.

     

Psychometric Characteristics of the German Values in Action Inventory of Strengths 120-Item Short Form

The original Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS) is an international 240 item validated self-report questionnaire measuring character strengths. A validated and reliable English 120-item short form (VIA-120) is available. However, there is limited information about the psychometric properties of the German VIA-120. This article addresses this gap and reports the reliability, validity and comparability of the German VIA-120 with the German VIA-240 version. Two independent samples were recruited: a general population sample (N = 1073, Sample 1) and a sample consisting of medical students and physicians (N = 685, Sample 2). Internal consistency of the VIA-120-scales ranged from α = .58 (modesty) to α = .87 (spirituality) in Sample 1 and α = .63 (honesty) to α = .90 (spirituality) in Sample 2. Intercorrelations between the scales of the 120-item version and the original 240-Items version (Sample 1) ranged from r = .52 (hope) to r = .89 (prudence). Criterion validity with the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) and the Brief Inventory of Thriving (BIT) was demonstrated. The comparison of the factor structure between the original and the short form showed a good convergence (Tucker’s Phi .93–.99 Sample 1, .95–.98 Sample 2). Overall, the German VIA-120 was reliable, showed good convergence with the German VIA-240 and thus presents a similar level of validity for the assessment of character strengths. This study provides the first indication that the VIA 120 short form is comparable regarding the validity and reliability of the original VIA 240-item version indicating its potential to be used in large scale research studies.

     

Moral Relativism

Moral relativism comes in many varieties. One is a moral doctrine, according to which we ought to respect other cultures, and allow them to solve moral problems as they see fit. I will say nothing about this kind of moral relativism in the present context. Another kind of moral relativism is semantic moral relativism, according to which, when we pass moral judgements, we make an implicit reference to some system of morality (our own). According to this kind of moral relativism, when I say that a certain action is right, my statement is elliptic. What I am really saying is that, according to the system of morality in my culture, this action is right. I will reject this kind of relativism. According to yet another kind of moral relativism, which we may call epistemic, it is possible that, when one person (belonging to one culture) makes a certain moral judgement, such as that this action is right, and another person (belong to another culture) makes the judgement that the very same action is wrong, they may have just as good reasons for their respective judgements; it is even possible that, were they fully informed about all the facts, equally imaginative, and so forth, they would still hold on to their respective (conflicting) judgements. They are each fully justified in their belief in conflicting judgements. I will comment on this form of moral relativism in passing. Finally, however, there is a kind of moral relativism we could call ontological, according to which, when two persons pass conflicting moral verdicts on a certain action, they may both be right. The explanation is that they make their judgements from the perspective of different, socially constructed, moral universes. So while it is true in the first person's moral universe that a certain action is right, it is true in the second person's moral universe that the very same action is wrong. I explain and defend this version of ontological moral relativism.