René Mõttus
@renemottus.bsky.social
570 followers 200 following 110 posts
Personality psychology professor. Edinburgh. Tartu. Current effort: https://whichjob.me About psychology: https://psychologytoday.com/us/blog/people-unexplained https://personalitypsychologypodcast.com
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
renemottus.bsky.social
Personality change people: does it make sense to think that to change a broader trait domain (neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness) one could consider starting with those facets/nuances that are furthest from the desired levels?
(Most room for change?)
renemottus.bsky.social
Submissions are now open for 22nd European Conference on Personality (Edinburgh, 2026); deadline 7/12/25.
Keynote speakers and pre-conference workshops have also been confirmed.
www.ecp22edinburgh.org/submission
European Conference on Personality, Edinburgh, 2026
Reposted by René Mõttus
dingdingpeng.the100.ci
New paper out with @boryslaw.bsky.social 🥳 In which we sketch out how to rethink measurement invariance causally for applied researchers. And provide a causal definition of measurement invariance!

www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
Rethinking measurement invariance causally

Highlights:
It is preferable to work with a causal definition of measurement invariance
A violation of measurement invariance is a potentially substantively interesting observation
Standard tests for measurement invariance rely on strong assumptions
Group differences can be thought of as descriptive results Conceptual graph illustration the central points of the manuscript. A group variable is potentiall connected to a construct of interest which affects items. Measurement invariance is violated if the group variable directly affects the items, for example by modifying the loadings from the construct to the items, or by directly affecting an item To make this less abstract, consider a scenario where students take an exam, R, meant to capture some ability, T, and then are admitted to a program, V, depending on their exam results: R → V. This is sufficient to result in a violation of the statistical definition of measurement invariance. Exam results and admission are not independent given ability because exam results have a direct effect on admission. Even if we know somebody’s ability (e.g., we know it’s very high), learning about their admission status (e.g., they were not admitted) can tell us something about their exam result (e.g., it may have been worse than expected). According to the causal definition, this in itself does not constitute measurement bias, which seems a sensible conclusion here. After all, the scenario does not involve any reason to believe that the measurement process varied systematically by admission status. Admission happens after the exams took place, it cannot retroactively influence the measurement process (and, for example, lead to unfair treatment depending on admission status).
renemottus.bsky.social
I once proposed a simple tool to understand and visualise correlations, TACT.
doi.org/10.5964/ps.7...

This app makes it even easier to use: apps.psych.ut.ee/TACT/
TACT: Trisect And Cross-Tabulate to understand and visualise correlations
apps.psych.ut.ee
renemottus.bsky.social
Since otherwise the stability is confounded with test-specific variance (e.g., facets/nuances, stable item interpretations etc).

It's like people define latent traits as the shared variance of multiple indicators cross-sectionally -- here we extend to longitudinal data.
renemottus.bsky.social
I suppose yes, this makes them real in some sense.
My follow-up question is: if these "real" Big Five exist independently of their tests, then to study the "real" rank-order stability of the Big Five, we should assess them with different tests at different time-points.
renemottus.bsky.social
Personality folks, is there an argument to be made for latent Big Five traits that exist independently of the particular test we happen to use to assess them?
(If yes, I will have a follow-up question)
renemottus.bsky.social
Now published in Current Opinion, we show why personality research should embrace multi-rater studies and how this can be achieved in practice, even at scale. Often, this is the most realistic way to avoid (reliably) invalid conclusions.
doi.org/10.1016/j.co...
Reposted by René Mõttus
dingdingpeng.the100.ci
What I really enjoy about Bluesky is how you can serendipitously learn so much stuff. You’ve probably heard of Dunbar’s number — the idea that humans can only maintain X stable social relationships, because *gestures vaguely* brain? Here’s a deconstruction of it.>
renemottus.bsky.social
Good thing there is a reference for why this (or any such) number makes no sense.
Reposted by René Mõttus
syeducation.bsky.social
Folks, it's time to submit your papers to PCI Psychology. Here is our invitation to you, taken from our editorial osf.io/preprints/ps...
A screenshot from the PCI Psychology editorial
renemottus.bsky.social
What is the best public domain occupational interest test currently available (still relevant for the current job market)?
renemottus.bsky.social
And how that difference plays out in other demographic trends (see number of kids 👀). Personality is up next 😁
renemottus.bsky.social
Would you recognise your friend from their personality trait profile?
Photos can be instructive: portraits of 5×5px (Big Five), 30×30px (NEO facets), or 100×100px (more facets/nuances). You decide.
doi.org/10.31234/osf...
renemottus.bsky.social
This was a fun conversation with Kensy, the host of the @manymindspod.bsky.social
manymindspod.bsky.social
New episode!! 📣🎙️

A conversation w/ @renemottus.bsky.social about the science of human personality.

The "Big Five" model of human personality has been enormously generative and influential. But what does it miss? What does it mask? Where should the field go next?

Listen: disi.org/the-big-five...
renemottus.bsky.social
This may be one of the largest personality research projects ever.
tedmond.bsky.social
Extremely excited to share the first effort of the Revived Genomics of Personality Consortium: A highly-powered, comprehensive GWAS of the Big Five personality traits in 1.14 million participants from 46 cohorts. www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...
renemottus.bsky.social
Both personality traits and satisfaction may vary with these ...