Aging with trauma across the lifetime and experiencing trauma in old age: Vulnerability and resilience intertwined. In K. E. Cherry (Ed.), Traumatic stress and long-term recovery: Coping with disasters and other negative life events (pp. 293-308). Springer.

This study examined the associations between personality traits and psychological and behavioural responses to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. Personality was assessed in January/February 2020 when the public was not aware of the spread of coronavirus in the USA. Participants were reassessed in late March 2020 with four sets of questions about the pandemic: concerns, precautions, preparatory behaviours, and duration estimates. The sample consisted of N = 2066 participants (mean age = 51.42; range = 18–98; 48.5% women). Regression models were used to analyse the data with age, gender, education, race, and ethnicity as covariates. Consistent with the preregistered hypotheses, higher neuroticism was related to more concerns and longer duration estimates related to COVID‐19, higher extraversion was related to shorter duration estimates, and higher conscientiousness was associated with more precautions. In contrast to the preregistered hypotheses, higher neuroticism was associated with fewer precautions and unrelated to preparatory behaviours. Age moderated several trait–response associations, suggesting that some of the responses were associated more strongly in older adults, a group at risk for complications of COVID‐19. For example, older adults high in conscientiousness prepared more. The present findings provide insights into how personality predicts concerns and behaviours related to the COVID‐19 pandemic. © 2020 European Association of Personality Psychology

This metasynthesis provides among the most compelling evidence to date that personality predicts overall health and well-being. In addition, it may inform research on the mechanisms by which personality impacts health as well as research on the structure of personality. (PsycINFO Database Record

The better-than-average-effect (BTAE) is the tendency for people to perceive their abilities, attributes, and personality traits as superior compared with their average peer. This article offers a comprehensive review of the BTAE and the first quantitative synthesis of the BTAE literature. We define the effect, differentiate it from related phenomena, and describe relevant methodological approaches, theories, and psychological mechanisms. Next, we present a comprehensive meta-analysis of BTAE studies, including data from 124 published articles, 291 independent samples, and more than 950,000 participants. Results indicated that the BTAE is robust across studies (dz = 0.78, 95% CI [0.71, 0.84]), with little evidence of publication bias. Further, moderation tests suggested that the BTAE is larger in the case of personality traits than abilities, positive as opposed to negative dimensions, and in studies that (a) use the direct rather than the indirect method, (b) involve many rather than few dimensions, (c) sample European Americans rather than East-Asians (especially for individualistic traits), and (d) counterbalance self and average peer judgments. Finally, the BTAE is moderately associated with self-esteem (r = .34) and life satisfaction (r = .33). Results from selection model analyses clarify areas of the BTAE literature in which publication bias may be of elevated concern. Discussion highlights theoretical and empirical implications.

Objective: To derive a robust estimate of the relation between health and subjective status in society versus subjective status in one's community, and to identify moderators of these effects, using metaanalysis. Method: Thirty-eight independent studies, which included both subjective status ladders and collectively provided data from 142,836 participants, met criteria for inclusion. Information on sample characteristics (e.g., age, gender, continent), methodological factors (e.g., scale type, methodological quality), and statistical factors (e.g., model type, inclusion of objective socioeconomic status covariates) were extracted from each study. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to aggregate data across studies. Results: Both the community ladder and the society ladder yielded small but statistically significant associations with health behavior (r ϭ .06 and r ϭ .06), mental health (r ϭ .13 and r ϭ .11), physical health (r ϭ .05 and r ϭ .04), and self-rated health (r ϭ .08 and r ϭ .09) that were comparable in size and were qualified in a similar way by the type of health outcome, sample age, continent, and methodological quality. Additionally, community and society ladders remained significantly associated with health both when considered simultaneously and following the inclusion of objective socioeconomic status covariates. Conclusions: This meta-analysis is the first to establish a unique association of the community ladder with health. It also supports social comparison theories highlighting the importance of comparisons with proximal others and may promote greater use of the community ladder in future research.