Geänderte Inhalte

Hier finden Sie Informationen rund um die Approbationsprüfung.

Hier finden Sie alle Informationen rund um Ihre Tätigkeit in der Weiterbildungsambulanz.

Hier finden Sie Informationen zu den theoretischen Seminaren.

A central assumption in lay and psychological theories is that people are attracted to potential mates who are similar to themselves in personality traits. However, the empirical findings on this idea have been inconclusive. Only a few studies have considered real-life dating contexts, and the statistical approaches they applied have sometimes spuriously identified similarity effects. In our study, 397 heterosexual singles (aged 18-28) participated in real speed-dates (Ndates = 940). Using dyadic response surface analysis, we investigated effects of actual similarity (similarity between self-reported personality trait levels) and perceptual similarity (similarity between an actor’s personality and his/her perception of the partner’s personality) concerning the Big Five traits. Neither type of similarity was related to initial romantic attraction. That is, the empirical evidence contradicted the idea that attraction occurs when people’s personalities match. We conclude that understanding initial attraction requires a deeper understanding of interpersonal dynamics in first encounters.

Personality and social relationships influence each other in multiple and consequential ways. To understand how people differ from each other in their personality and social behavior, how these differences develop, and how this affects further life outcomes, we need to better understand the interplay of personality and social relationships. Here, we provide an integrative overview on personality-relationship research across relationship types (everyday encounters, friendships, romantic, and family relationships), and personality characteristics. We summarize the state of research on (a) how much relationship aspects vary across actors, partners, and actor-partner relations, (b) which personality characteristics predict these variance components (i.e. actor, partner, and relationship effects), and (c) how social relationships work as contexts for personality development. Following an integrative process framework, key open questions are discussed concerning the processes that underlie personality-relationship and relationship-personality effects. We conclude with a call for conceptual integration, methodological expansion, and collaborative action.

Age and gender differences in narcissism have been studied often. However, considering the rich history of narcissism research accompanied by its diverging conceptualizations, little is known about age and gender differences across various narcissism measures. The present study investigated age and gender differences and their interactions across eight widely used narcissism instruments (i.e., Narcissistic Personality Inventory, Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale, Dirty Dozen, Psychological Entitlement Scale, DSM-IV NPD, Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire-Short Form, Single Item Narcissism Scale, and brief version of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory). The findings of Study 1 (N = 5,736) revealed heterogeneity in how strongly the measures correlated. Some instruments loaded clearly on one of three factors proposed by previous research (i.e., neuroticism, extraversion, antagonism), while others cross- loaded across factors and in distinct ways. Cross-sectional analyses using each measure and meta-analytic results across all measures (Study 2) with a total sample of 270,029 participants suggest consistent linear age effects (random effects meta-analytic effect of r = -.104), with narcissism being highest in young adulthood. Consistent gender differences also emerged (random effects meta-analytic effect was -.079), such that men scored higher in narcissism than women. Quadratic age effects and age x gender effects were generally very small and inconsistent. We conclude that despite the various conceptualizations of narcissism, age and gender differences are generalizable across the eight measures used in the present study. However, their size varied based on the instrument used. We discuss the sources of this heterogeneity and the potential mechanisms for age and gender differences.