Investigating the association between social interactions and personality states dynamics

Abstract

The recent personality psychology literature has coined the name of personality states to refer to states having the same behavioural, affective and cognitive content (described by adjectives) as the corresponding trait, but for a shorter duration. The variability in personality states may be the reaction to specific characteristics of situations. The aim of our study is to investigate whether specific situational factors, that is, different configurations of face-to-face interactions, are predictors of variability of personality states in a work environment. The obtained results provide evidence that within-person variability in personality is associated with variation in face-to-face interactions. Interestingly, the effects differ by type and level of the personality states: adaptation effects for Agreeableness and Emotional Stability, whereby the personality states of an individual trigger similar states in other people interacting with them and complementarity effects for Openness to Experience, whereby the personality states of an individual trigger opposite states in other people interacting with them. Overall, these findings encourage further research to characterize face-to-face and social interactions in terms of their relevance to personality states.

Pathways to conspiracy: The social and linguistic precursors of involvement in Reddit’s conspiracy theory forum

“…Continuous recording of reactions is only possible over relatively short time periods in the lab. The study of longer-term interactions has primarily been approached by intermittent experience sampling [58,59] or varieties of retrospective self-report [60,61]. Both techniques provide valuable evidence but face well-known methodological challenges Individuals who actively engage with conspiracy theories in social spaces are also challenging to study using experimental designs.…”

Understanding Personality through Patterns of Daily Socializing: Applying Recurrence Quantification Analysis to Naturalistically Observed Intensive Longitudinal Social Interaction Data

“…Our work adds to the growing literature on personality dynamics (Hopwood, Zimmermann, Pincus, & Krueger, 2015; Robinson & Gordon, 2011; Read et al, 2010; Sosnowska, Kuppens, De Fruyt, & Hofmans, 2019; Wright, Hopwood, & Simms, 2015) and the dynamics of socializing (Dishion & Snyder, 2004; Hollenstein, 2007; Lavictoire, Snyder, Stoolmiller, & Hollenstein, 2012; Schelling, 1998). We present the first instance (to the best of our knowledge) of relating non‐linear socializing dynamics assessed through ambulatory assessment to personality traits (but see Gundogdu et al, 2017 and Wang et al, 2018, for related analysis strategies, and Stachl et al, 2020, for some linear dynamic measures). Theoretically, a dynamic systems perspective suggests that personality can be conceptualized as a self‐regulating network of components (Danvers, Wundrack, & Mehl, 2020,; Fleeson & Jayawickreme, 2015; Mischel & Shoda, 1995; Sosnowska, Kuppens, et al, 2019).…”

“…The second approach we employed was to develop a predictive algorithm in a machine learning framework (Hindman, 2015). Machine learning models are typically evaluated based on their ability to accurately predict new cases, not through significance tests of specific regression coefficients.…”

Use of Technology in the Study of Team-Interaction and Performance

“…In Pentland's (2012) study of the importance of communication, cited above, he used a wearable sensor platform called a sociometer to reach his conclusions. There is an increasing use of electronic sensors or wearables in empirical studies of team-interactions (Alshamsi et al, 2015(Alshamsi et al, , 2016Chaffin et al, 2017;Gundogdu et al, 2017;Kim et al, 2012;Orbach et al, 2015;Wageman et al, 2012;Watanabe et al, 2014). Although there is also an increasing number of different technologies to support team research (Carter et al, 2015;Chaffin et al, 2017;Kozlowski, 2015;Kozlowski et al, 2016;Luciano et al, 2018;Santoro et al, 2015;Tonidandel et al, 2018), a vast number of these are still purely technology driven and do not sufficiently connect to existing theories and knowledge in the small group field (Chaffin et al, 2017).…”