Evidence suggests that self-focused attention and cognitive failures may have disruptive effects on the use of specific coping strategies in stressful situations. In this study the personality factors of private self-consciousness (dispositional self-attention) and cognitive failures were investigated in relation to coping processes in specific stressful episodes reported by 139 female nurses. Multiple regression analyses were run to test for personality predictors of problem-focused coping, emotion-focused coping, and suppression-coping strategies. In examining the relationship between personality factors and coping the possible (...) mediational role of subjects' appraisals (importance of the episode and perceptions of control) were investigated. The results showed significant negative correlations between self-attention and emotion-focused and problem-focused coping only in mixed controllability situations. A significant negative correlation between cognitive failures and suppression was similarly dependent on subjects' situation specific control appraisals. The specificity of these relationships is interpreted in terms of the different effects which self-focus, cognitive failures, and control appraisals have on attention. (shrink)

The administration of psychological tests is highly regulated. Test manuals prescribe the instructions to the test subject, the time the test should take, where it should take place, whether and how the test administrator should answer questions from the test subject, and other aspects of the testing situation. Through the manual, the behaviour of test administrator and test subject is disciplined so that the subject may become measurable. The manuals of four tests are analysed, and the disciplinary mechanisms that operate (...) in the administration of these tests are described. Attention is then given to the question whether the discipline of the test is repressive or productive. It is concluded that test manuals, while being central to the production of a psychological subject, also articulate an excess subjectivity in the measures they prescribe to exclude it from the testing situation. (shrink)

The ArgumentThis article considers three major problems with the concept of genes for human personality traits: uncertainty about what human personality is; what we mean when we say there is a gene “for” a mental attribute; and the complexity of interactions between genes and environment, and among the genes themselves. It then draws on examples from empirical human genetic studies by the author and his colleagues in order to suggest that the concept of genes for human personality traits nevertheless does (...) have some validity, and also that we may be on the brink of discovering genes with major effects on human personality. This possibility, in particular its ethical aspects, has aroused some public concern. It is suggested that confidential information about an individual's genes does not differ in principle from other confidential information about him or her, and that the ability to affect genes and their expression, temporarily or permanently, does not differ ethically from our current ability to affect other aspects of an individual's physical and psychological functioning. Genes for potential offspring, contained in ova and sperm cells, constitute a special case. (shrink)

The present paper had four goals which all aimed at understanding more of the psychological process taking place when people intentionally distort their answers to a questionnaire. Moreover, possible causes for individual differences in responding to situational demand were investigated. Finally, it was explored whether there were any differences in the criterion validities of different conscientiousness scores. The results of the qualitative and the quantitative analyses show that the psychological process happening when people fake a questionnaire starts with the evaluation (...) of the importance of an item regarding the situational demand. This evaluation is based on specific knowledge, implicit theories, and reasoning. The actual answer then depends on the preference for one of three response sets: regular response, slight faking, and extreme faking. People with high self efficacy of positive self – presentation beliefs tend to endorse extreme categories. Moreover, the actual answer has a solid base in the real conscientiousness score. Finally, it was shown that honest, faked, and MRM corrected conscientiousness scores did not differ in their criterion validity, but in the ranking of people. (shrink)