Reconsidering normative interpretations in personality research

Abstract

A vast body of knowledge on development and correlates of personality dimensions has led to recommendations on policy implications and interventions. However, we argue that there has not been enough attention to the socio-cultural contexts of personality development, resulting in incomplete and potentially harmful interpretations of the data. Although personality theorists have addressed the role of socio-cultural context by pointing to person–environment interactions and transactions, we argue that the implementation of contextualism is largely missing at a more fundamental level: In the operationalization of constructs and interpretations of individuals’ standings on those constructs. The focus of this article is on the maturity principle of personality development. We discuss problems that may arise when relying on constructs developed in a specific group (i.e., primarily upper-middle class individuals in the United States) and then using value-laden labels such as “mature” and “healthy” to suggest that one personality profile is better than another. We aim to motivate researchers to not only reflect on using labels suggesting that certain profiles or changes in personality are universally desirable or undesirable, especially without attention to diversity in methods and samples, but also to understand how our values inform how we conduct and communicate our science.

Plain language summary

A vast body of knowledge on development and correlates of personality has led to recommendations on policy implications and interventions. However, we argue that there has not been enough attention to the wide variety of settings and conditions in which people develop their personality, resulting in incomplete and potentially harmful interpretations of the data. The focus of this article is on the maturity principle of personality development, which more-or-less suggests that particular changes in personality scores are indicative of growing up and becoming an adult. We discuss problems that can arise when relying on constructs developed in a specific group (i.e., primarily upper-middle class individuals in the United States) and then using value-laden labels such as “mature” and “healthy” to suggest that there is one personality profile that is the best for everyone and under all conditions. We aim to motivate researchers to not only reflect on using labels suggesting that certain profiles or changes in personality are universally desirable or undesirable, especially without attention to diversity in methods and samples, but also to understand how values of us as researchers inform how we conduct and communicate our science.