Daily Responsiveness,Expectations, and Self-disclosure: How the Average Levels and Within-person Variability of Three Relationship Components Mediate Personality–Relationship Transactions in Romantic Couples

The associations between couple members' personality and their relationship satisfaction can be conceptualized as reciprocal transactions. To better understand these transactions, we focused on both partners' interpersonal vulnerabilities (i.e. neuroticism, low self-esteem, and insecure attachment); daily emotional, cognitive, and behavioural relationship components (i.e. perceived responsiveness, positive expectations, and self-disclosure); and relationship satisfaction. Specifically, we examined whether the average levels and within-person variability of the relationship components mediated the transactions between interpersonal vulnerabilities and relationship satisfaction. Data came from 689 female–male couples aged 18 to 81 years who participated in three measurement occasions across 12 months, including a 14-day diary phase. We used mediated dyadic bivariate latent change score models to test the level–change and change–change transactions and mediations. The findings partly supported our hypotheses: Couple members with interpersonal vulnerabilities had lower average levels (but not higher within-person variability) of the relationship components, and less satisfied couple members had lower average levels and higher within-person variability of these components. The lower average levels but not the variability mediated between a lower level of relationship satisfaction and an increase in avoidant attachment. No other mediations were observed. We discuss the importance of studying daily relationship components for better understanding reciprocal transactions in couples. © 2020 European Association of Personality Psychology     

Is it enough to be willing to win or do you have to be smart? The relationship between competitive worldviews,cognitive abilities,and applicant faking in personality tests

Recent research has highlighted competitive worldviews as a key predictor of faking—the intentional distortion of answers by candidates in the selection context. According to theoretical assumptions, applicants’ abilities, and especially their cognitive abilities, should influence whether faking motivation, triggered by competitive worldviews, can be turned into successful faking behavior. Therefore, we examined the influence of competitive worldviews on faking in personality tests and investigated a possible moderation of this relationship by cognitive abilities in three independent high school and university student samples (N₁ = 133, N₂ = 137, N₃ = 268). Our data showed neither an influence of the two variables nor of their interaction on faking behavior. We discuss possible reasons for these findings and give suggestions for further research.     

To be at the tail of the lions or the head of the foxes?

Agents seeking an opportunity for profit often have to compete with others who pursue the same opportunity. When having to choose between a number of opportunities differing in their value and if individuals differ in their chances of outperforming others, the choice can be cognitively and emotionally demanding. We explore choice between opportunities using stylized Lions–Foxes games. In such a game, each of three players, with different odds of beating others, has to choose one of two contests that offer different rewards. After game theoretically analyzing the games, which we have experimentally employed, we report four experiments that vary in choice elicitation (repeated play or strategy method), in players' matching (random strangers or partners) and in rewards. Regarding contest choices, we found the choice of the higher value (and seemingly more prestigious) contest to be positively related to winning odds, contrary to what four out of the five (mixed, partially mixed, or pure) equilibria predict. Participants started out rather optimistic, with a large majority choosing the higher value option, but with experience, they approached the only viable of two pure strategy equilibria. Still, mixing continued via reacting to past play and outcome, apparently balancing dissatisfaction from choosing either contest.