Enhancement) and drawbacks from another process (i.e., violation of self

May 15, 2018

Enhancement) and drawbacks from another process (i.e., violation of self verification) accrue at different rates, there is an inflection point where the overall outcome ceases to be beneficial. Response surface ML390MedChemExpress ML390 analyses revealed that moderate increases in sociality, agency, and conscientiousness were optimal, as hypothesized. Thus, the evidence supports the Goldilocks hypothesis for these three traits. The detection of Goldilocks qhw.v5i4.5120 effects (and other curvilinear effects) hinges on the use of polynomial coefficients rather than linear coefficients. Prior studies of trait change solely used linear coefficients, and Goldilocks effects and other curvilinear effects were thus undetectable. As others have noted [70], the Goldilocks effect is a common feature in the positive psychology literature, and inattention to such effects may be limiting to progress when well-being is the outcome of interest. (We caution that polynomial coefficient analysis is necessary but insufficient for the detection of optimal levels. Post hoc analyses, such as those conducted here, must be used to detect optimal levels after significant polynomial coefficients have been found.) It is unclear whether people experience a significant loss of well-being once they cross the optimal threshold, because the response surface analyses were only partially consistent with the piecewise regression analyses. The response surface analyses suggest that there are costs to excessive positive change, whereas the piecewise regression analyses suggest that there are neither costs nor benefits to excessive positive change. Nevertheless, both rstb.2015.0074 types of analyses indicate an inflection point. We consider the response surface analyses to be more reliable because they do not depend on differences scores, which are methodologically problematic. Future analyses with multiple waves of measurement will be useful in clarifying this ambiguity. Change in neuroticism had a markedly different impact on well-being. Across all three wellbeing variables–including the case where some curvilinearity was detected–maximal decline was optimal, according to the response surface analyses. Put differently, there seems to be no point of Crotaline chemical information diminishing returns to well-being when it comes to declines in neuroticism. The piecewise regression results contrasted with the response surface analyses in this case. Whereas the response surface analyses showed that declines in neuroticism were healthy across all three outcomes, the piecewise regressions showed one exception hen PWB was the outcome, large changes were not particularly beneficial. We once again interpret the response surface analyses as being more reliable. Nevertheless, these contrasting results leave some ambiguity about howPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0131316 July 10,25 /Investigating the Goldilocks Hypothesissubstantial changes in neuroticism affect well-being. Future research on trait change should examine this connection in greater detail. The contrast between neuroticism and the other traits indicates that researchers should be wary of measuring aggregate trait change instead of attending to each trait individually. The aggregation method, which was used by Human et al. [2], led to the conclusion that trait change uniformly caused negative outcomes. They also reported results for each trait, but their conclusions were largely drawn from their analysis of aggregated change (p. 6). This analysis glossed over the heterogeneity of effects demonstrate.Enhancement) and drawbacks from another process (i.e., violation of self verification) accrue at different rates, there is an inflection point where the overall outcome ceases to be beneficial. Response surface analyses revealed that moderate increases in sociality, agency, and conscientiousness were optimal, as hypothesized. Thus, the evidence supports the Goldilocks hypothesis for these three traits. The detection of Goldilocks qhw.v5i4.5120 effects (and other curvilinear effects) hinges on the use of polynomial coefficients rather than linear coefficients. Prior studies of trait change solely used linear coefficients, and Goldilocks effects and other curvilinear effects were thus undetectable. As others have noted [70], the Goldilocks effect is a common feature in the positive psychology literature, and inattention to such effects may be limiting to progress when well-being is the outcome of interest. (We caution that polynomial coefficient analysis is necessary but insufficient for the detection of optimal levels. Post hoc analyses, such as those conducted here, must be used to detect optimal levels after significant polynomial coefficients have been found.) It is unclear whether people experience a significant loss of well-being once they cross the optimal threshold, because the response surface analyses were only partially consistent with the piecewise regression analyses. The response surface analyses suggest that there are costs to excessive positive change, whereas the piecewise regression analyses suggest that there are neither costs nor benefits to excessive positive change. Nevertheless, both rstb.2015.0074 types of analyses indicate an inflection point. We consider the response surface analyses to be more reliable because they do not depend on differences scores, which are methodologically problematic. Future analyses with multiple waves of measurement will be useful in clarifying this ambiguity. Change in neuroticism had a markedly different impact on well-being. Across all three wellbeing variables–including the case where some curvilinearity was detected–maximal decline was optimal, according to the response surface analyses. Put differently, there seems to be no point of diminishing returns to well-being when it comes to declines in neuroticism. The piecewise regression results contrasted with the response surface analyses in this case. Whereas the response surface analyses showed that declines in neuroticism were healthy across all three outcomes, the piecewise regressions showed one exception hen PWB was the outcome, large changes were not particularly beneficial. We once again interpret the response surface analyses as being more reliable. Nevertheless, these contrasting results leave some ambiguity about howPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0131316 July 10,25 /Investigating the Goldilocks Hypothesissubstantial changes in neuroticism affect well-being. Future research on trait change should examine this connection in greater detail. The contrast between neuroticism and the other traits indicates that researchers should be wary of measuring aggregate trait change instead of attending to each trait individually. The aggregation method, which was used by Human et al. [2], led to the conclusion that trait change uniformly caused negative outcomes. They also reported results for each trait, but their conclusions were largely drawn from their analysis of aggregated change (p. 6). This analysis glossed over the heterogeneity of effects demonstrate.