social sciences

Self-control a limited resource: muscle analogy

It has been proposed that self-control is a limited resource. Which means that our self-control would diminish over the day. From the moment we wake up, we’re faced with choices. What do you want to wear? What are you going to eat for breakfast? What time are you going to leave for school or work? And according to the muscle analogy, put forward by Baumeister, these choices get more difficult as the day progresses. We can’t use our muscles infinitely, just as we can’t use our self-control limitlessly. While there is new research that proposes that the muscle analogy might not be entirely accurate, I will describe one of Baumeister’s experiments that added scientific weight to the existence of his analogy.

An experiment with cookies and radishes
In 1998 a scientific article was published in which Baumeister was involved¹. His research team carried out different experiments to show that self-control is a limited resource. One of the experiments was carried out using cookies and radishes. The participants were 67 psychology students, who were told they were going to be studied on taste perception. This, of course, was a cover-up. When testing a hypothesis, you don’t want the test subjects to know what the researchers are looking for, as this might influence the results.
The researchers split the students into three groups, there was a control group (who didn’t eat any food), a radish group (they were asked to eat at least 2 or 3 radishes), and a cookie group (they were asked to eat at least 2 or 3 cookies). None of the participants were aware of belonging to a group and didn’t have a clue about what was actually being tested. And each participant was studied individually.But there is another catch! In the research room, they were baking cookies, so both participants in the radish group and cookie group were exposed to the delicious smell of fresh baked cookies.
Moreover, in the room, there was a bowl with cookies and a bowl with radishes. So, imagine you were assigned to the radish group and there is a delicious cookie aroma all around you, but you’re asked to only eat radishes. My wild guess is that if you had the choice, you would go for the cookies instead of the radishes. But the experiment doesn’t stop there! After eating radishes or cookies, the participants were asked to solve a puzzle. And again, there’s a catch. The puzzle is unsolvable.
The researchers compared the participants who were assigned to the different groups. In line with the muscle analogy, they found that those who were asked to eat radishes were more likely to give up easily. The researchers explain that this is due to the fact that they already had to exert self-control before the puzzle, which used up some of their self-control.

1. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource?. Journal of personality and social psychology, 74(5), 1252.

Books

Understanding natural science as a social scientist

Even though I study social science, I’m still very much interested in natural science. For this reason, I like to read books on evolution theory by Dawkins. I often like to read about topics associated with this theory, so I don’t find his books hard to understand. However, I also wanted to know more about physics, so I decided to read A Brief History Of Time by Stephen Hawkings. I must say that I had trouble following Hawkings’ explanations.

Though, his book did teach me something outside of all the theories clarified by the author. As someone who studies social sciences, I often feel looked down upon by other fields of research. Psychology and sociology have really been working hard on their reputations and haven’t been around as long as natural sciences to prove themselves. Physics has this image that natural laws hold truth. We know the Earth is not flat, we know gravity is a thing, and we know molecules exist. Yet, social theories such as the Big Five are still met with reluctance.

But reading Hawkings’ book I realized that a myriad of natural science theories exist that we aren’t as confident in as the theory of gravity. What fascinated me even more is that opposing views exist in the natural science field! I was aware of the opposing views in regards to quantum physics, as it is relatively new. As researchers have used it to back up philosophical claims, such as free will and determinism.

Fortunately, I also gained a better understanding of Einstein’s relativity theory, blackholes, and some of the elementary particles. Although I had to do my best to grasp what the author was trying to explain, I did learn several new things. Even if your understanding of physics is whatever you learned in a physic’s class in high school, I do recommend this book. You do gain a better insight of how natural science works.

social sciences

Psychology is all around you

Not only in the literal sense, when you engage with people or don’t engage with people. It’s more than that. As it isn’t just internal stimuli that determine your actions, it’s also external stimuli. It’s mostly an interaction between the two. Our internal stimuli, such as the process of picking out an outfit for the day, are heavily influenced by external stimuli. What we buy at a supermarket might depend on how the products are positioned, or the environment you’re in. Psychology is all around you. Here I will list some examples how you are influenced by your environment and therefore demonstrate the importance of psychology.

The weather
You might or might not be aware of the effect of weather on your mood. To find out if different dimensions of the weather can have an affect on us, researchers collected 2 year’s worth of Tweets. Looking at the Tweeted content and the weather on that particular day, the found that, for instance, rain can put us in a negative mood.¹
What’s even more interesting is that people attribute their negative feelings to bad weather. In a study, people were asked to rate their moods. Those who were in a good mood left it at that and didn’t attribute it to anything in particular. However, those in a bad mood attributed it to the weather. Thus, actively trying to seek external causes for their feelings.²

Retailers
Supermarkets. There are patterns in human behavior when it comes to supermarkets. For instance, researchers found that a crowd attracts more people. When there are other shoppers present at a certain aisle, it attracts new shoppers. But these new shoppers are less likely to buy something from that store zone. The researchers speculate that people change their behaviors in the presence of other shoppers. They are less likely to make unnecessary purchases and engage in fewer exploratory behaviors.³
Tricks. Retailers try to influence your buying behavior, preferably to increase their sales. They can do so by creating attractive labels for their products or interesting advertisements telling you their product is a necessity.  Another way is to elicit certain feelings among their customers. That is demand accelerates demand. This means that when we know that something is highly wanted by other consumers, we want it too. Researchers looked at shelves in a supermarket and found that people are more likely to opt for the ‘scarce’ product. When faced with two similar products, you’re gonna choose the one with the partially emptied shelf.4
Learn more about how we make choices and what happens if we’re faced with too many choices.

Other people
The presence of other people has a huge effect on our behaviors. One of those effects is called the bystander effect. According to this effect, the mere presence of others changes how we behave. This effect is often studied in situations were strangers need help. Why when someone falls down do people sometimes fail to help this person? Or even worse, there have been multiple cases of fatal cases and no one interfering. This is most likely due to the diffusion of responsibility. People might think: ‘why should I be the one to help? there are others, they can help too’. Or they might look at other people’s faces to determine the severity of the case. They see that everyone seems indifferent and decide that it’s not that bad. But unbeknownst to them, everyone is looking at each other for cues if it’s severe enough that they should step in.5
An interesting experiment on how others influence our behaviors is the groundbreaking research by Asch.People were put into groups and had to publically answer easy questions. For instance, the saw three lines and had to indicate which line was similar to a fourth line displayed on the side. This is an incredibly easy task and almost impossible to get wrong. However, each participant was put into a group of confederates. So they were surrounded by a group of actors. The group would purposively and collectively pick the wrong answer. The participants were very likely to go along with the answer the group gave. Even though they knew it was wrong. But people are afraid to stand out most of the time.
Learn more about helping behaviors.

As you can see, many of the patterns in human behavior are constantly studied by psychologists. These theories can help explain human behavior. People often think they’re unique in the choices they make or their actions. But it turns out, we’re not so different after all. And the proof is all around us.

1. Li, J., Wang, X., & Hovy, E. (2014, November). What a nasty day: Exploring mood-weather relationship from twitter. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (pp. 1309-1318). ACM.
2. Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of personality and social psychology, 45(3), 513.
3. Hui, S. K., Bradlow, E. T., & Fader, P. S. (2009). Testing behavioral hypotheses using an integrated model of grocery store shopping path and purchase behavior. Journal of consumer research, 36(3), 478-493.
4. Van Herpen, E., Pieters, R., & Zeelenberg, M. (2009). When demand accelerates demand: Trailing the bandwagon. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(3), 302-312.
5. Latane, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of personality and social psychology, 10(3), 215.
6. Asch, S.E. (1951). Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men(pp. 177–190). Pittsburgh, PA:Carnegie Press

social sciences

How to deal with stress

Awhile ago I wrote a post on dealing with anxiety. Unfortunately, stress is another negative emotion people experience in their daily lives. While stress can force us to get things done and help us achieve goals, it can also impair us and cause health problems. Hormones involved in being in a stressed state can damage neurons in the brain(1). It affects our immune system, for instance, we can become more susceptible to colds(2). However, it is important to note that most of such consequences are related to chronic stress, which means being in a state of stress for longer periods of time.

In our modern world, there are many different situations which can affect our stress levels. Deadlines at work, school papers, paying the bills, maintaining relationships; each one of us experiences a myriad of stressors in a day. We might not be able to get rid of stress altogether, but we can try to find new ways to deal with it.

  • Having too much on your plate
    • Sometimes you have to say no. There are a lot of important things in our life we want to do. But we can’t do all of them. And if we did try to do all of them at once, we might end up failing at more things we anticipated. Quality over quantity. On the long term, it is more beneficial to focus on a few things, rather than devoting our time to a hundred things at once. We’re often unaware that many things can wait.
  • Get rid of the problem?
    • Sometimes you have to take a leap of faith. If something gives you chronic stress, it might be time to get rid of the problem. If you have to write a paper or take a course and you really can’t handle it with rest you got going on right now, maybe it would be better to try again next year or the next opportunity you get. Or maybe your work is severely affecting your mental health, you might want to consider quitting. Look for something that gives you more room to maintain your health.
  • Recognize your temporary emotions
    • Some things we can’t say no to. Not all of us have the privilege to postpone stressful situations that need our attention now, such as planning the funeral of a recently passed away loved one. Therefore, in such situations, it’s important to remember that it’s temporary. This isn’t the first stressful situation you’ve dealt it and it certainly won’t be the last. Remember you’ve tackled problems before and you will continue to do so.
  • Reach out
    • Others can help you. Whether it be to take off some of the load by helping you or to provide you with some moral support. Having your friends or family assure you that you can get through it might just be enough to get rid of some of the stress!
  • Don’t forget to focus on other important aspects
    • Remember to tend to other needs, such as nutrition and sleep. Temporary not eating well or not getting enough sleep for awhile is nothing to worry too much about. But don’t make it a habit. Also, try to convince yourself to get your daily nutritional needs. Emotional eating is a real thing and can be triggered in stressful times. Reaching for junk food might activate an endorphin release, due to the sugars(3). Endorphins make us feel good. We might also overeat, as feeling stuffed makes us feel tired and relaxed. However, you can also achieve this state of relaxation without overeating!
  • Take a break
    • If possible, take a break. Play a game (Sudoku, your favorite video game, a fun game app on your phone), watch TV, go for a walk, hang out with a friend. Moving away from the stressor might help you in the long run. Taking a small break will give you new energy you’ll need to take on your stressor.
  • Stop comparing yourself to others
    • If you feel stressed because you aren’t where you want to be in life school-wise, career-wise or anything else, it might be time to re-evaluate. Ask yourself why you need to be anywhere anyway. It’s not a race. The internet is filled with anecdotes of people who wrote their first best-selling book at 50, became a famous actor at 40, got the first real job they liked at 60 or finally overcame their fears at 38. There are only a few times opportunities will only present themselves once. With some out-of-the-box-thinking, you can still get where you need to be even if that means taking an alternative route.

1. Sapolsky, R. M. (1996). Stress, glucocorticoids, and damage to the nervous system: the current state of confusion. Stress, 1(1), 1-19.
2. Segerstrom, S. C., & Miller, G. E. (2004). Psychological stress and the human immune system: a meta-analytic study of 30 years of inquiry. Psychological bulletin, 130(4), 601.
3. Fortuna, J. L. (2010). Sweet preference, sugar addiction and the familial history of alcohol dependence: shared neural pathways and genes. Journal of psychoactive drugs, 42(2), 147-151.

social sciences

Why don’t people help each other anymore?

Often you hear people make statements such as: ‘people don’t help each other out anymore!’. This broad claim is applied to many different situations. This idea is often paired with the individualistic mindset that is supposedly growing, especially in western countries. Everyone is only focusing on their own goals and obligations, not paying attention to the ones around them. A second, more practical example is that of crisis situations. This could be a situation in which a stranger needs help, for instance someone being harassed, got injured, or can’t do something. There are so many stories on people suffering while onlookers do absolutely nothing. And immediately it’s assumed that those bystanders are cold-hearted individuals who do not care for others’ troubles.

But I want to argue that there are many factors involved that cause people not to help out, it is a very complex process. Researchers have found that these onlookers are not likely to help out because of the bystander effect. Imagine a scenario in a busy street where a person trips and falls. People either quickly glance at the ‘victim’ or might ignore them altogether. But why doesn’t anyone feel inclined to help out? Before discussing the mechanisms at work I will present a different scenario that was used in an experimental setting.

Imagine sitting in a waiting room with two other people, waiting for the researchers to come and get you. Suddenly a bit of smoke seems to enter the room. You study the faces of the two other people in the room. They do not seem to react to the smoke at all. More and more smoke starts to fill the room, yet no one reacts, including yourself. Now, let’s change the setting a bit. This time you’re alone in the waiting room, smoke starts filling the room. This time you get up to warn the researchers. [Click here to see a video depicting this situation]
This is more or less what was found in Latane and Darley’s (1968) study. People are more likely to report the smoke when sitting alone in the room. This principle can be applied to many different situations in which there is some kind of danger or emergency, and action is required.

So why don’t we help out?
But if you’d ask people how they would react in such a situation, most people would probably say that they would definitely help out. However, social factors are much more important than we think. Unknowingly we are incredibly influenced by the presence of others. But why does this make us less likely to help out? What is going on? First of all, there is uncertainty. Situations are often very ambiguous and it’s hard to interpret what is going on. This makes it even more difficult to react accordingly, we don’t know what is expected of us. Is the smoke filling the room normal? Or is it dangerous? Is the person tripping and falling really hurt? Or do they not want me to approach them? Second, there is the diffusion of responsibility. Others are present, why aren’t they helping out or doing something? Why do I have to be the one to report it? Or: I am sure someone else will help the person that fell down.

When to help out?
It gets even trickier when the bystander effect is present due to the two aforementioned principles involved. Because you could argue that the bystander effect begets the bystander effect. If you’re in an ambiguous situation where no one is helping out, you might look at other people’s reactions to find out whether it’s serious and help is required. But that is the issue, everyone has a straight face, looking at how others are reacting.
Therefore, interpretation of the situation can be very problematic. To draw up another example, imagine a man and a woman fighting in public. They are screaming at each other and at one point, the man hits the woman. Should you step in? Do they know each other? Is that ‘normal’ behavior to them? What if the man (or woman) ends up trying to (physically) fight you if you butt in? I can list many examples from the news of people trying to help out that resulted in their death.

Helping: rural vs urban
There are different factors that can influence bystander effect. It has been hypothesized many times that people in rural settings are more likely to help out than in urban settings. And Steblay (1987) found results in line with this statement. I am going to speculate here that anonymity might play a role in helping behavior as well. In smaller communities, such as rural areas, people might be related to each other in one way or another. And we are more likely help those out that we have some kind of relation to (e.g. acquaintances, coworkers, neighbors).

How to make people help!
If one person approaches a person that needs help, more people will likely follow. This is because someone interpreted the situation, and they assumed the person needed help. Therefore, more people are more likely to follow their lead. We can always ask someone if they need help. In my experience, this is an easy way to find out if you should do something. There have only been a few times that people were unkind, but they might be embarrassed that they fell or really value their independence. If you are the one that needs help, screaming ‘help!’ doesn’t always work. Point at someone and try to directly ask people for help. This way you give people the responsibility to help out, eliminating the diffusion of responsibility principle.

Why aren’t we helping out anymore?
I have read statements by people claiming that we have become individualistic and we no longer help each other anymore. First of all, I would like to challenge this claim by asking what time period we are comparing today with. Was there ever a time when we actively helped each other out? From a sociologist perspective, over the last hundred years, we did become more individualistic. And often the possible negative consequences are discussed and the positive ones are left untouched. I would like to argue that individualism has both detrimental and stimulating effects, both on macro and micro level. However I am not convinced that individualism leads to less helping behavior. Our genetic makeup still influences this type of behavior, as we are likely to carry out altruistic acts, especially for our kin.

Latane, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of personality and social psychology, 10(3), 215.

Steblay, N. M. (1987). Helping behavior in rural and urban environments: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 346.

First picture source.

social media

Facebook and mental health

Facebook has been available to the general public since 2006. Since this time there have been many studies on the effects of Facebook on individual’s mental states. There have also been studies on how personality traits can influence internet use. Facebook is a new environment where people can socialize, this space, which is considerably different from face-to-face communication, can have disparate implications.

One of the major arguments people use when criticizing social media is the idea that it might replace real life interactions. However, this concern seems to be ungrounded, as the opposite is more likely to be true. People still engage in face-to-face interactions, and on top of that communicate through the use of an internet connection. Thus the amount spent socializing has actually increased.
Another issue which is often discussed is that Facebook does not mimic a setting close to real life interaction. Which, at face value, is very likely to be true. First of all, the average amount of Facebook friends is 150. This is not just an arbitrary number, this is referred to as the Dunbar number. Based on our cognitive capacities humans are limited to maintaining this number of relationships.
Third, the content that is shared and posted doesn’t always match the discussed content in real life. For instance, people seem to be more likely to share their positive milestones and experiences. Entering such a space, from a hypothetical standpoint, could affect your mental state. People might start to feel like negative emotions or occurrences are unusual, and from this they will infer that something is wrong with them.

Depression
Moreno et al. (2011) looked at depressive symptoms displayed on Facebook profiles of college students. In order to identify these symptoms, they used the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The DSM is a book used by many different professionals, including psychologists, to recognize mental disorders. For this study, they used the criteria of a major depressive episodeThey found that 25% of the profiles they studied disclosed symptoms of depression. And 2.5% displayed symptoms of an actual major depressive episode. The authors of this article refer to suicide in relation to Facebook being a much talked about topic in the media nowadays. Recently a teen took her own life while broadcasting this using the Facebook Live tool. Because of such events and the fact that Facebook users do sometimes display symptoms online, the researchers opt for identifying those at risk and making sure they receive further clinical evaluation.

Envy
Krasnova et al. looked at envy on Facebook. They asked respondents what kind of reasons others might have for experiencing negative emotions using this social media site. And one of the most picked reasons was envy, or upward social comparison. Afterward the participants had to indicate what exactly could elicit such feelings, with travel and leisure being the top reason. They also find that 20% of the times people felt envious, it was elicited by Facebook use.

Well-being
Kim and Lee (2011) looked at self-reported well-being and Facebook. They posited that the amount of Facebook friends could be associated with people’s well-being. And that is exactly what they found in their sample of college students, more friends mean higher well-being. This wasn’t because they perceive more social support but according to the researchers it is more likely to be an enhancement of self-worth.
In terms of social support, they find a  negative curvilinear association with the amount of friends. Most likely due to the fact that maintaining a few close relationships is important for social support, and that the number of friends is not important in this regard.
Positive self-presentation on Facebook also positively influences people’s well-being. The authors point out that people like having positive feelings about themselves, and that presenting yourself in such a way can increase your subjective well-being.

Dunbar, R. I. (1992). Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates. Journal of human evolution, 22(6), 469-493.

Kim, J., & Lee, J. E. R. (2011). The Facebook paths to happiness: Effects of the number of Facebook friends and self-presentation on subjective well-being. CyberPsychology, behavior, and social networking, 14(6), 359-364.

Krasnova, H., Wenninger, H., Widjaja, T., & Buxmann, P. (2013). Envy on Facebook: A hidden threat to users’ life satisfaction?.

Moreno, M. A., Jelenchick, L. A., Egan, K. G., Cox, E., Young, H., Gannon, K. E., & Becker, T. (2011). Feeling bad on Facebook: depression disclosures by college students on a social networking site. Depression and anxiety, 28(6), 447-455.

social sciences

What are you like? What does your personality predict?

Psychology has created many personality tests that help predict and understand people’s behavior. However one of the most used tests seems to be the Big Five test. This test changed a lot in it’s beginning phases, at the end of the nineteenth century. But now the test includes 5 different traits, which is often abbreviated to OCEAN.

OCEAN stands for the following traits: openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and neuroticism. A Big Five test includes scales measuring these five constructs. The beauty of this test is that these traits have been proven to be quite stable over a (person’s) lifetime. And these constructs have been used to measure links with other behaviors or personality traits. For instance, these have been linked to political preference, work performance, health behaviors, and even your social media behavior. (Link below to take the test!)

Big Five traits
As mentioned earlier, the test measures five different traits. The first trait, openness, is about one’s openness to new experiences. If you score high on this trait, you could be considered curious, and interested in arts or music, and you have an active imagination.
Second, there is conscientiousness, this has to do with being organized. This means you’re reliable in your work, and you do things efficiently.
Then there is extraversion, probably one of the most known traits of the Big Five. People who score high on this trait are sociable, outgoing, and not likely to be reversed or timid.
The fourth trait is agreeableness, this is your tendency to agree with others and to cooperate. If you score low on this, you are more likely to blame others, start fights, and be rude.
Lastly, there is neuroticism, people who score high on this are more likely to be emotionally unstable, worry a lot, and get nervous.

Job performance
As mentioned earlier, these traits are linked to behaviors in certain settings. In a job-related setting, in which one has to be social, you could imagine that extraversion would be beneficial for performance. This turned out to be the case according to research done by Barrick and Mount (1991), They also found that conscientiousness was beneficial for most types of jobs.

Political preferences
And in terms of political preferences, center-right voters score a bit higher on conscientiousness, whereas center-left voters scored higher on agreeableness and openness (Capara, Barbaranelli, & Zimbardo, 1999).
Openness to experience is negatively related to conservatism, this means that those who tend to score low on this trait are more likely to hold conservative views. Extraversion is linked to political participation, that is carried out through group settings, which intuitively makes sense since you will be spending time with others. Furthermore, extroverts are also more likely to engage in political discussions, however, interestingly enough do not necessarily possess more political knowledge. Those who score high on openness to experience do seem to have more of this knowledge. And lastly, highly agreeable individuals tend to avoid political discussions (Mondak & Halperin, 2008), and one could speculate that they would do so to avoid situations in which they might have to disagree, this might create an uncomfortable situation.

Health behaviors 
Conscientiousness is linked to behaviors that promote health, agreeableness is linked to behaviors that include less substance use. While both behaviors predict less risk-taking in traffic situations. The same researchers that found these links argue that knowledge of such associations can improve programs aimed to increase/promote help. For instance, they propose that those scoring low on conscientiousness might benefit more from programs that involve peers (Booth-Kewely & Vickers, 1994).

Social media behaviors
Those scoring high on openness to might be more likely to share and post intellectual information (Marshall, Lefringhausen, & Ferenczi, 2015). People who use Facebook for socializing score higher on neuroticism, whereas people who use Twitter for the same purpose score higher on openness. Individuals high in neuroticism and extraversion preferred Facebook over Twitter (Hughes, Rowe, Batey,  & Lee, 2012). The amount of Facebook friends has also been studied, neuroticism is negatively linked to this amount. This means that those high in neuroticism have fewer friends. And extraversion is positively linked, thus scoring higher on this trait means having more Facebook friends. Neurotics also engage in ‘liking’ others’ posts more and are part of more Facebook groups. The authors argue that these individuals tend to experience more negative emotions and therefore are more likely to take part in behaviors that might prompt support (Bachrach et al, 2012).

Take the Big Five test!

Inventory used to describe traits, very interesting read!

Bachrach, Y., Kosinski, M., Graepel, T., Kohli, P., & Stillwell, D. (2012). Personality and patterns of Facebook usage. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM Web Science Conference (pp. 24-32). ACM.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta‐analysis. Personnel psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
Booth‐Kewley, S., & Vickers, R. R. (1994). Associations between major domains of personality and health behavior. Journal of personality, 62(3), 281-298.
Capara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1999). Personality profiles and political parties. Political psychology, 20(1), 175-197.
Hughes, D. J., Rowe, M., Batey, M., & Lee, A. (2012). A tale of two sites: Twitter vs. Facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 561-569.
Marshall, T. C., Lefringhausen, K., & Ferenczi, N. (2015). The Big Five, self-esteem, and narcissism as predictors of the topics people write about in Facebook status updates. Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 35-40.
Mondak, J. J., & Halperin, K. D. (2008). A framework for the study of personality and political behaviour. British Journal of Political Science, 38(02), 335-362.