PERSOC: A Unified Framework for Understanding the Dynamic Interplay of Personality and Social Relationships

By M. Back, Anna Baumert, Jaap J. A. Denissen, Freda-Marie Hartung, L. Penke, S. Schmukle, Felix D. Schönbrodt, Michela Schröder‐Abé, M. Vollmann, J. Wagner and 1 more. 2011

260 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The interplay of personality and social relationships is as fascinating as it is complex and it pertains to a wide array of largely separate research domains. Here, we present an integrative and unified framework for analysing the complex dynamics of personality and social relationships (PERSOC). Basic principles and general processes on the individual and dyadic level are outlined to show how personality and social relationships influence each other and develop over time. PERSOC stresses the importance of social behaviours and interpersonal perceptions as mediating processes organized in social interaction units. The framework can be applied to diverse social relationships such as first encounters, short–term acquaintances, friendships, relationships between working group members, educational or therapeutic settings, romantic relationships and family relationships. It has important consequences for how we conceptualize, understand, and investigate personality and social relationships. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5f33794e8e586854e138a02300351559ace73c01

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Walking in each other's Shoes: Perspective Taking Mediates Effects of Emotional Intelligence on Relationship Quality (2011, background): “When analysing interpersonal processes, one should clearly distinguish between interpersonal perceptions (e.g., partner perceptions of emotions) and social behaviours (e.g., verbally validating the partner’s view) as aspects of perspective taking (Back et al., 2011).”
Understanding personality development (2018, methodology): “The PERSOC framework (Back et al., 2011) focuses on the interplay of personality and social relationships, and process sequences are described as social interaction units made up of interconnected interaction partners’ behavioral (i.e., interaction behaviors) and mental states (including self-,…”
What Drives Adult Personality Development? A Comparison of Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Evidence (2014, background): “…might be another means through which personality development proceeds Copyright © 2014 European Association of Personality Psychology (e.g.Giletta et al., 2011; Rammstedt, Spinath, Richter, & Schupp, 2013; see also Back et al., 2011, for how personality and relationship development are interwoven).”
Longitudinal Experience–Wide Association Studies—A Framework for Studying Personality Change (2020, background): “Recent theoretical accounts—while emphasizing different details—aim to explain how changes in personality traits unfold over time; how external sources such as life events can get under the skin and lead to change in traits; and why people differ in their individual trajectories when exposed to rele”
The Evil Queen's Dilemma: Linking Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry to Benign and Malicious Envy (2016, background): “Despite the importance of identifying processes associated with social consequences of personality (Back, 2015; Back et al., 2011), such evidence about the paradoxical effects of narcissism is still limited (refer to Leckelt et al.”
How Peers Make a Difference: The Role of Peer Groups and Peer Relationships in Personality Development (2014, background): “, group socialization theory; Harris, 1995) and specific dyadic relationship experiences within groups (e.g., PERSOC; Back et al., 2011).”
Lab And/Or Field? Measuring Personality Processes and Their Social Consequences (2015, background): “…speed-dating protocols (Asendorpf et al., 2011; Berrios et al., 2015; Finkel & Eastwick, 2008; Finkel et al., 2007), self-introductions to peers (Back et al., 2011c), dyadic (Aron et al., 1997; Funder & Sneed, 1993; Ickes, 1983; 1993) or triadic (Letzring et al., 2006) interaction tasks,…”
Explaining the Link between Personality and Relationship Satisfaction: Emotion Regulation and Interpersonal Behaviour in Conflict Discussions (2015, methodology): “In line with the PERSOC model (Back et al. 2011), the Big Five personality dimensions (i.”
Integrating Personality Structure, Personality Process, and Personality Development (2017, background): “We also did not address interpersonal or intergroup processes in the present paper, and such processes are without doubt important for complete understanding of personality (Back et al., 2011).”
Personality Traits and Relationship Satisfaction in Intimate Couples: Three Perspectives on Personality (2014, background): “91) and are assumed to be based on mind-reading and perspective-taking processes (Back et al., 2011; Back & Kenny, 2010; Carlson & Kenny, 2012; Kenny, 1994; Kenny & DePaulo, 1993).”
Personality and Friendship Satisfaction in Daily Life: Do Everyday Social Interactions Account for Individual Differences in Friendship Satisfaction? (2015, methodology): “The mediation model portrayed in Figure 1 is based on the theoretical framework outlined in PERSOC (Back et al., 2011).”
Why Mate Choices are not as Reciprocal as we Assume: The Role of Personality, Flirting and Physical Attractiveness (2011, methodology): “When trying to understand the interplay of personality and social decisions, it is important to consider the actual behaviours involved (Back & Egloff, 2009; Back, Schmukle & Egloff, 2008, 2010b; Back et al., 2011; Küfner, Back, Nestler, & Egloff, 2010).”
Interpersonal Dynamics in Personality and Personality Disorders (2018, methodology): “…behaviour in interpersonal situations is goal directed (DeYoung, 2015; Horowitz et al., 2006), balances trait and social perspectives on behaviour (Back et al., 2011; Fleeson, 2001), and distinguishes between actual and perceived behaviour (Back et al., 2011; DeYoung, 2015; Wessels et al., 2016;…”