I study personality and subjective wellbeing ("happiness") and their link with affect, emotion and mood (anxiety/depression) and with the environment in which one lives and grows (e.g., our social network, daily activities, adverse events, society). Currently I work at the University of Groningen in the Department of Developmental Psychology and in the Interdisciplinary Center Psychopathology and Emotion regulation (www.ICPE.NL)
The coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic was a severe global health emergenc... more The coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic was a severe global health emergency and psychosocial event. Global social mitigation measures triggered the biggest economic meltdown in a century. Coronavirus 2019 influences every aspect of our lives and accelerates societal transformations. The global scale of the pandemic enables scientists to compare contexts and cultures, while an unprecedented media coverage of this psychosocial event allows for a review of societal perspectives and sequalae. The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic differs between socioeconomic strata, age cohorts, by gender, culture, and personality. But all humans were affected, if only via secondary stress (as observed after Ebola, Fukushima, Chernobyl, 9/11), or the mental health and financial consequences of prolonged social isolation (as observed after SARS/MERS), and the changes in the societies and nations that surround them, in terms of values, politics, and resources. People and societies experienced different intensities of threat and control and emotions such as anxiety and frustration, and behaved differently. Policies and citizen adherence influenced infection risk, mortality, and resilience during social isolation and prolonged social mitigation measures. This book describes the emotional, somatic, and mental health responses over the spring of 2020, as well as changes in the social world and in our feelings, thoughts, wants, behaviors, and values. Did we observe the expected rise in introversion, risk aversion, and collectivism? This book reviews the media and literature over the spring of 2020 to describe the characteristics of the Covid-19 pandemic as a natural experiment. The downstream Covid-19 pandemic outcomes are compared against the forecasted scenarios based on personality principles and theories (March 2020), including the Big Five factors, the behavioral immune system, and interpersonal theory. Over the next years we shall witness how individuals and societies managed and whether the predicted psychosocial and health responses can be observed. https://doi.org/10.21827/5ed9ebc01d65f
The coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic is a severe global health emergency... more The coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic is a severe global health emergency and psychosocial event via social isolation measures, which triggered the biggest economic meltdown in a century. Coronavirus 2019 influences every aspect of our lives and accelerates societal transformations. Downstream consequences of Covid-19 can be predicted using personality principles and theories, including the Big Five factors, the behavioral immune system, and interpersonal theory. The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic shall differ between socioeconomic strata, age, gender, culture, and personality differences. All humans shall be affected, if only via secondary stress (as observed after Ebola, Fukushima, Chernobyl, 9/11), the severe mental health and financial consequences of prolonged social isolation (as observed after SARS/MERS), and changes in national values, politics, and resources. People and societies experience different levels of threat and control, anxiety, behavior (infection risk), mortality, and resilience during prolonged social isolation (coping). Emotional, somatic, and mental health responses follow over the spring of 2020. Our personality or what we generally feel, think, want, do, and value may change together with the structure of our social worlds. For example, we may expect people to become slightly more introverted, risk aversive, and collectivistic. This chapter was aimed to (1) introduce the Covid-19 pandemic as a natural experiment; (2) describe the event characteristics over the spring of 2020; (3) provide a preregistration of predictions on Covid-19 pandemic outcome scenarios using personality theory (see Tables 3 and 4, March 2020); (4) introduces the PsyCorona study and the HowNutsAreTheDutch platform which can be used to test some predictions (method section); (4) provide the background for an entry level course on personality and individual differences (PSB1E-05, May 2020); and (5) unravel the secrets of happy neurotics. Over the next years we shall witness how individuals and societies manage and whether the predicted psychosocial and health responses can be observed.
ABSTRACT Durbin and Hicks concluded in their paper on personality-psychopathology relationships t... more ABSTRACT Durbin and Hicks concluded in their paper on personality-psychopathology relationships that the field is stagnant. Their remedy is the developmental perspective. We agree this is definitely one (already ongoing!) way forward. However, some of their judgements were overstated, while their proposal neglected deep complexities of the personality–disorder relationship. Nowhere did they specify and elaborate the ‘conceptual and empirical distinctions between traits and disorders’. Additionally, they failed to discuss two other complexities: induction time and determining true change. We elaborate these issues and stress the power of intervention designs.
The coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic was a severe global health emergenc... more The coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic was a severe global health emergency and psychosocial event. Global social mitigation measures triggered the biggest economic meltdown in a century. Coronavirus 2019 influences every aspect of our lives and accelerates societal transformations. The global scale of the pandemic enables scientists to compare contexts and cultures, while an unprecedented media coverage of this psychosocial event allows for a review of societal perspectives and sequalae. The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic differs between socioeconomic strata, age cohorts, by gender, culture, and personality. But all humans were affected, if only via secondary stress (as observed after Ebola, Fukushima, Chernobyl, 9/11), or the mental health and financial consequences of prolonged social isolation (as observed after SARS/MERS), and the changes in the societies and nations that surround them, in terms of values, politics, and resources. People and societies experienced different intensities of threat and control and emotions such as anxiety and frustration, and behaved differently. Policies and citizen adherence influenced infection risk, mortality, and resilience during social isolation and prolonged social mitigation measures. This book describes the emotional, somatic, and mental health responses over the spring of 2020, as well as changes in the social world and in our feelings, thoughts, wants, behaviors, and values. Did we observe the expected rise in introversion, risk aversion, and collectivism? This book reviews the media and literature over the spring of 2020 to describe the characteristics of the Covid-19 pandemic as a natural experiment. The downstream Covid-19 pandemic outcomes are compared against the forecasted scenarios based on personality principles and theories (March 2020), including the Big Five factors, the behavioral immune system, and interpersonal theory. Over the next years we shall witness how individuals and societies managed and whether the predicted psychosocial and health responses can be observed. https://doi.org/10.21827/5ed9ebc01d65f
The coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic is a severe global health emergency... more The coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic is a severe global health emergency and psychosocial event via social isolation measures, which triggered the biggest economic meltdown in a century. Coronavirus 2019 influences every aspect of our lives and accelerates societal transformations. Downstream consequences of Covid-19 can be predicted using personality principles and theories, including the Big Five factors, the behavioral immune system, and interpersonal theory. The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic shall differ between socioeconomic strata, age, gender, culture, and personality differences. All humans shall be affected, if only via secondary stress (as observed after Ebola, Fukushima, Chernobyl, 9/11), the severe mental health and financial consequences of prolonged social isolation (as observed after SARS/MERS), and changes in national values, politics, and resources. People and societies experience different levels of threat and control, anxiety, behavior (infection risk), mortality, and resilience during prolonged social isolation (coping). Emotional, somatic, and mental health responses follow over the spring of 2020. Our personality or what we generally feel, think, want, do, and value may change together with the structure of our social worlds. For example, we may expect people to become slightly more introverted, risk aversive, and collectivistic. This chapter was aimed to (1) introduce the Covid-19 pandemic as a natural experiment; (2) describe the event characteristics over the spring of 2020; (3) provide a preregistration of predictions on Covid-19 pandemic outcome scenarios using personality theory (see Tables 3 and 4, March 2020); (4) introduces the PsyCorona study and the HowNutsAreTheDutch platform which can be used to test some predictions (method section); (4) provide the background for an entry level course on personality and individual differences (PSB1E-05, May 2020); and (5) unravel the secrets of happy neurotics. Over the next years we shall witness how individuals and societies manage and whether the predicted psychosocial and health responses can be observed.
ABSTRACT Durbin and Hicks concluded in their paper on personality-psychopathology relationships t... more ABSTRACT Durbin and Hicks concluded in their paper on personality-psychopathology relationships that the field is stagnant. Their remedy is the developmental perspective. We agree this is definitely one (already ongoing!) way forward. However, some of their judgements were overstated, while their proposal neglected deep complexities of the personality–disorder relationship. Nowhere did they specify and elaborate the ‘conceptual and empirical distinctions between traits and disorders’. Additionally, they failed to discuss two other complexities: induction time and determining true change. We elaborate these issues and stress the power of intervention designs.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2019
We offer our sincere gratitude to Hamaker and Ryan (1) for their comment. As we note in our manus... more We offer our sincere gratitude to Hamaker and Ryan (1) for their comment. As we note in our manuscript (2), we believe the generalization issue in question to be a key problem in human subject research methodology. This challenge requires effort from all quarters to resolve. We also agree "that we should interpret measures in terms of what they are meant to represent." This is perhaps the most important point to be taken from our paper-that understanding individuals requires measuring and analyzing individuals. Thus, it may be fair to argue that comparisons between idio-graphic and nomothetic data structures offer limited value. To this end, we do not diverge from Hamaker and Ryan's position. However, we should clarify that the repeated sampling paradigm we used explicitly avoids the problem of an asymptotically error-free estimate under infinite sampling conditions. As Hamaker and Ryan (1) note, our cross-sectional samples were not independent. Specifically, we resampled the same population, in its entirety, multiple times. As a result, the variability around the cross-sectional correlation estimate is the degree to which that estimate varies within the sampled population over time. Taken to the extreme, measuring a bivariate correlation in the entire human population at one time point would return a cross-sectional estimate without error. However, measuring the same bivariate correlation in the entire human population repeatedly would produce a distribution of estimates with a central tendency and a non-zero SD-the degree to which each measurement varied from the average across time points. Consequently , our estimate is not a proxy for the SE of the cross-sectional correlation estimate or for within-individual correlations, but a third representation, which estimates within-sample temporal instability in cross-sectional estimates. As Hamaker and Ryan (1) would likely agree, this third representation is fundamentally not a representation of within-subject processes over time. Moreover , it is also fair to acknowledge that it likely does not reflect the true measure of the variability (i.e., temporal instability) of the cross-sectional estimate over time. Although the repeated sampling of any population will produce variation around the mean, some of this variation will no doubt be due to within-individual variance over time. This intrasubject variation might further include important stochastic, nonlinear, and phase information. We believe that for group-derived statistical estimates to generalize to individuals, these estimates must hold true over time (and likewise correspond with temporal dynamics at the individual level). Given that human physiology and phenomenology unfold in time, quantifications of human experience must apply over repeated intervals. However, the variability that a single individual exhibits in behavior over repeated assessments is fundamentally different from the variability that a cross-sectional estimate exhibits from repeated testing. Thus, it may be inappropriate to use one estimate to represent or draw inferences about the other (3). Like Hamaker and Ryan (1), we advocate for statistical practices that distinguish group and individual effects, as these illustrate the difference between understanding people and claims about groups, which may or may not extrapolate to their constituent individuals.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2019
We thank Adolf and Fried (2019) for their insightful commentary on our paper (Fisher et al., 2018... more We thank Adolf and Fried (2019) for their insightful commentary on our paper (Fisher et al., 2018). We agree, in principle, that group-to-individual generalizability lies along a continuum. Some intraindividual and interindividual statistical estimates may be ergodic, sharing equivalent values across all statistical moments. Under these conditions, inferences from cross-sectional data could be applied to individuals. On the other end of this continuum, intra- and interindividual estimates are orthogonal, rendering them unrelated and nontransferable.
In his target paper Hopwood proposes the expansion of the Big Five framework beyond the conventio... more In his target paper Hopwood proposes the expansion of the Big Five framework beyond the conventional range of personality features to cover (a) their maladaptive extremes nowadays conceptualized as personality disorders and (b) dynamic intra-individual processes that underlie and contextualize traits and changes within situations. In this comment we reflect on both proposals and support Hopwood's plea to enrich the neuroticism factor and integrate affect dynamics within the Big Five fabric. We conclude with some musings on the definition of abnormality and current practices in the personality disorder literature.
International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 2018
With this note we aim to rectify the estimated prevalence of depression symptom levels in our pap... more With this note we aim to rectify the estimated prevalence of depression symptom levels in our paper on the HowNutsAreTheDutch dataset (van der Krieke et al., 2015, p.13) based on the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS). The estimates were reported to be based on the cutoff norms for the DASS provided by Lovibond et al. (1995). Alas, by mistake the stress scale cutoff was also used for the depression scale. Consequently, our estimates of the prevalence of depression were too conservative as the correct norms by Lovibond would have resulted in 26.2% participants with mild symptom levels (instead of the reported 14.8%), 16.8% with moderate levels (instead of 9.1%), 7.2% with severe symptom levels (instead of 3.9%), and 3.0% with extremely severe levels (instead of 1.3%). Importantly, the reported results based on the continuous anxiety and stress scales were not affected, and neither were all other estimations of the role of depression and of gender differences in the paper and tables, because these were based on the DASS depression scale scores (without cutoffs) or Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS) symptom counts. None of the subsequent papers using the HowNutsAreTheDutch dataset were affected. A detailed study of the DASS, and especially of the depression scale and the distribution and prevalence of the symptoms in the HowNutsAreTheDutch sample and a comparison with other depression instruments is provided in Wardenaar et al. (2017): " the psychometric properties of an internet-administered version of the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS) in a Sample of Dutch Adults " (doi: 10.1007/s10862-017-9626-6). We apologize for the inconvenience.
Baumert and colleagues argued that research on between- and within-individual differences and exp... more Baumert and colleagues argued that research on between- and within-individual differences and expression of personality processes in context should be integrated. We applaud this effort and their focus on developmental processes but felt that their descriptions remained too unspecific. This comment highlights six issues that may contribute to a fruitful debate of future personality research: (a) induction time, (b) co-development of disorder states, (c) theory testing, (d) non-ergodicity and inferences at the within-individual level, (e) development as a complex dynamic system and (f) integration of literatures from neighboring scientific disciplines.
Durbin and Hicks concluded in their paper on personality-psychopathology relationships that the f... more Durbin and Hicks concluded in their paper on personality-psychopathology relationships that the field is stagnant. Their remedy is the developmental perspective. We agree this is definitely one (already ongoing!) way forward. However, some of their judgements were overstated, while their proposal neglected deep complexities of the personality–disorder relationship. Nowhere did they specify and elaborate the ‘conceptual and empirical distinctions between traits and disorders’. Additionally, they failed to discuss two other complexities: induction time and determining true change. We elaborate these issues and stress the power of intervention designs.
Environmental influences on neuroticism : a story about emotional (in)stability, 2015
Behavioral-genetic studies show substantial non-genetic influences on variance of neuroticism wit... more Behavioral-genetic studies show substantial non-genetic influences on variance of neuroticism within a population. Longitudinal studies show a small but steady drop in test-retest correlations with increasing time intervals. This suggest environmental effects on neuroticism, but a systematic overview of which environmental determinants account for change in neuroticism is lacking. We review (specific or unique) environmental influences that modify the neuroticism setpoint in adulthood and therewith individual life trajectories. Results are interpreted in light of the so-called ‘mixed model’ in which within-person changes in neuroticism are subdivided over short term perturbations around the setpoint of neuroticism versus more persistent changes in the setpoint itself. To account for genetic confounding and shared environmental influences studies of monozygotic (MZ) twin pairs discordant for neuroticism and longitudinal studies that report on environmental factors that predict within-individual change in neuroticism are reviewed. Our results indicate that the neuroticism setpoint is consistently touched by experiences that affect central aspects of one’s identity and status, mainly role transitions as partner (marriage/divorce) and employee (job loss/promotion). Especially interpersonal stress, conflict, and major events that were unpredictable, uncontrollable, unexpected, undesirable, and ‘off time’ from a life history perspective were followed by changes in neuroticism that persisted more than six months, which suggest setpoint change. Most change after severe SLEs persisted over a decade. Long-term and detailed studies are required to elucidate the details of the ‘mixed model’ of change in neuroticism. An understanding of the specifics of the events that lead to persistent changes in neuroticism may enable us to craft prevention strategies to tackle the vulnerability for mental disorders inherent in high neuroticism, rather than to wait for their manifestation.
Psychosocial Development in Adolescence: Insights from the Dynamic Systems Approach, 2019
Over recent years, it has become clear that group-based approaches cannot directly be used to und... more Over recent years, it has become clear that group-based approaches cannot directly be used to understand individual adolescent development. For that reason, interest in Dynamic Systems Theory, or DST, has increased rapidly. Psychosocial Development in Adolescence: Insights from the Dynamic Systems Approach covers state-of-the-art insights into adolescent development that have resulted from adopting a dynamic systems approach. The first chapter of the book provides a basic introduction into dynamic systems principles and explains their consequences for the study of development. Subsequently, different experts discuss why and how we can apply a dynamic systems approach to the study of the adolescent transition period and psychological interventions. Various examples of the application of a dynamic systems approach are showcased, ranging from basic to more advanced techniques, as well as the insights they have generated. These applications cover a variety of fundamental topics in adolescent development, ranging from the development of identity, morality, sexuality, and peer-networks, to more applied topics such as psychological interventions, educational dropout, and talent development. This book will be invaluable to both beginner and expert level students and researchers interested in a dynamic systems approach and in the insights that it has yielded for adolescent development.
This is a comment on the review by Brandes and Tackett (2019) of the connection between neurotici... more This is a comment on the review by Brandes and Tackett (2019) of the connection between neuroticism and psychopathology as conceptualized in the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology or (HiTOP).
Over recent years, it has become clear that group-based approaches cannot directly be used to und... more Over recent years, it has become clear that group-based approaches cannot directly be used to under- stand individual adolescent development. For that reason, interest in dynamic systems theory, or DST, has increased rapidly. Psychosocial Development in Adolescence: Insights from the Dynamic Systems Approach covers state-of-the-art insights into adolescent development that have resulted from adopting a dynamic systems approach. The first chapter of the book provides a basic introduction into dynamic systems principles and explains their consequences for the study of psychosocial development in adolescence. Subsequently, different experts discuss why and how we should apply a dynamic systems approach to the study of the adolescent transition period and psychological interventions. Various examples of the application of a dynamic systems approach are showcased, ranging from basic to more advanced techniques, as well as the insights they have generated. These applications cover a variety of fundamental topics in adolescent development, ranging from the development of identity, morality, sexuality, and peer networks, to more applied topics such as psychological interventions, educational dropout, and talent development. This book will be invaluable to both beginner and expert-level students and researchers interested in a dynamic systems approach and in the insights that it has yielded for adolescent development.
Uploads
Papers by Bertus F Jeronimus
The first chapter of the book provides a basic introduction into dynamic systems principles and
explains their consequences for the study of psychosocial development in adolescence. Subsequently, different experts discuss why and how we should apply a dynamic systems approach to the study of the adolescent transition period and psychological interventions. Various examples of the application of a dynamic systems approach are showcased, ranging from basic to more advanced techniques, as well as the insights they have generated. These applications cover a variety of fundamental topics in adolescent development, ranging from the development of identity, morality, sexuality, and peer networks, to more applied topics such as psychological interventions, educational dropout, and talent development. This book will be invaluable to both beginner and expert-level students and researchers interested in a dynamic systems approach and in the insights that it has yielded for adolescent development.