Motivational individual reaction norms underlying the Five-Factor model of personality: First steps towards a theory-based conceptual framework

By Jaap J. A. Denissen, L. Penke. 2008

424 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Clinical Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9265c192c61873b7dd4bd35b44ea8b96b8d23e82

How researchers see this paper

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

In Applied Psychology

1. R. Sherman
2. J. Rauthmann
3. D. Funder
4. Colin G. DeYoung
5. N. McNaughton
6. C. Nave
7. N. Hudson
8. Matthias Ziegler

In Clinical Psychology

1. J. Rauthmann
2. Colin G. DeYoung
3. R. Sherman
4. D. Funder
5. B. Roberts
6. W. Bleidorn
7. C. Kandler
8. N. Hudson

In Sociology and Political Science

1. R. Sherman
2. J. Rauthmann
3. D. Funder
4. G. Huber
5. D. Doherty
6. Conor M. Dowling
7. A. Gerber
8. C. Nave

Citations in the corpus

• Personality-driven situation experience, contact, and construal: How people’s personality traits predict characteristics of their situations in daily life (2015, result): “This finding resonates well with the (hyper-) vigilance aspect of Neuroticism (Nettle, 2006) and anxious monitoring of social exclusion (e.g., Denissen & Penke, 2008; Holmes, 2002) where neurotic persons would perceive Adversity (e.g., being blamed, criticized, threatened, etc.) even if they were…”
• A model for personality at three levels (2015, result): “This approach is reminiscent of that of Denissen and Penke (2008) and Penke, Denissen, and Miller (2007) who view stable traits as reaction norms to situational cues.”
• The Five-Factor Model Describes the Structure of Social Perceptions (2010, background): “Denissen and Penke (2008) characterized the Five-Factor Model as individual differences in motivational reactions to situations.”
• Testing an Adaptationist Theory of Trait Covariation: Relative Bargaining Power as a Common Calibrator of an Interpersonal Syndrome (2013, background): “…as the output of a ‘sociometer’ mechanism that estimates one’s degree of social inclusion and regulates responses to ostracism and exclusion (e.g. Anthony et al., 2007; Denissen & Penke, 2008b; Denissen, Penke, Schmidt, & van Aken, 2008; Kirkpatrick & Ellis, 2001; Leary, 2005; Leary et al., 2001).”
• Interpersonal Dynamics in Personality and Personality Disorders (2018, neutral): “…might account for those changes (Back et al., 2011; Baumert et al., 2017; Bleidorn, 2009; Carpenter, Wycoff, & Trull, 2016; Carver & Scheier, 1998; Denissen & Penke, 2008; Denissen, van Aken, Penke, & Wood, 2013; Denissen, Wood, & Penke, 2012; DeYoung, 2015; Durbin & Hicks, 2014; EbnerPriemer &…”
• The Mini-IPIP6: Validation and extension of a short measure of the Big-Six factors of personality in New Zealand. (2011, methodology): “…(Goldberg, 1999), the 44-item Big Five Inventory (BFI; John & Srivastava, 1999), the 50- item Five Individual Reaction Norms Inventory (FIRNI; Denissen & Penke, 2008), the 100-item Big Five Aspects Scale (BFAS; De Young, Quilty & Peterson, 2007), and the 60- and 100- item HEXACO (Ashton &…”
• Eyes as windows to the soul: Gazing behavior is related to personality (2012, background): “Conscientiousness refers to perseverant impulse control despite hindrances (Denissen & Penke, 2008) which per se does not imply an association with any eye movement parameter.”
• Understanding personality development (2018, neutral): “…differences in state processes—the dynamic patterns of how people feel, think, strive for, and behave in specific situations (e.g. Cervone, 2005; Denissen & Penke, 2008; Fleeson & Jayawickreme, 2015; Mischel & Shoda, 1998; Robinson, 2007, Robinson & Wilkowski, 2015; Wood, Gardner, & Harms,…”
• The Anatomy of Motivation: An Evolutionary-Ecological Approach (2013, background): “…where the dominant ‘‘Big Five’’ model (Costa and McCrae 1992) was developed based on empirical factor analyses (from work by Cattell, and before him, Murray), and which has proven difficult to tie to a more fundamental theoretical foundation (Nettle and Clegg 2006; Denissen and Penke 2008).”
• Personality Traits and the Consumption of Political Information (2011, background): “…between Big Five traits and use of “soft news” media such as satirical, late night, and daytime talk programs.5 Dispositional personality traits, like the Big Five, shape individuals’ responses to the stimuli they encounter in the world around them (Denissen & Penke, 2008; McAdams & Pals, 2006).”
• The Big Five Personality Traits and Attitudes towards Immigrants (2014, background): “Personality psychologists think of traits as dispositions or reaction norms for specific cognitive processes and behaviour, contingent on the situation (Denissen and Penke 2008, Mischel and Shoda 1995; Canli 2008).”
• The Five-Factor Framing of Personality and Beyond: Some Ruminations (2010, background): “However, a recent study (Denissen & Penke, 2008, p. 1291) illustrates some of the quirky sampling problems afflicting an impersonal Internet FFA approach.”
• Cybernetic Big Five Theory. (2015, background): “In this regard, it is most similar to Denissen and Penke’s (2008) theory of five individual reaction norms (FIRN) underlying the Big Five.”
• Motivating Knowledge Sharing in Knowledge Management Systems (2014, background): “Denissen and Penke (2008) suggest that individuals low in openness to experience are more likely to attend to predictable stimuli such as those explicitly specified in accountability-inducing management practices.”
• Goals to change personality traits: Concurrent links between personality traits, daily behavior, and goals to change oneself. (2014, methodology): “More recently, several scholars have argued that people’s motives to change their personality traits can influence their current thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, above and beyond the effect of personality traits (Denissen & Penke, 2008; Hoyle, 2006; Hoyle & Sherrill, 2006; Morf, 2006).”
• Assessing Personality States: What to Consider when Constructing Personality State Measures (2020, background): “Some have argued that this means that personality states must serve a specific purpose (Denissen & Penke, 2008) or function (M. Schmitt, 2009a) that is used to fulfil the need that arises from a specific standing on a personality trait.”
• Personality and Political Attitudes: Relationships across Issue Domains and Political Contexts (2010, background): “Conor M. Dowling is Postdoctoral Associate, Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University, 77 Prospect Street, PO Box 208209, New Haven, CT 06520-8209 (conor.dowling@yale.edu).”
• Trust: An Integrative Review from a Person–Situation Perspective (2015, background): “Moreover, individuals evaluated facial expressions (e.g., smiling) and body language cues (e.g., energetic and tense stance) as indicating (high) Agreeableness (Naumann et al., 2009)—a potential predictor of high cooperativeness (Denissen & Penke, 2008).”