Personality Science in the Digital Age: The Promises and Challenges of Psychological Targeting for Personalized Behavior-Change Interventions at Scale

With the rapidly growing availability of scalable psychological assessments, personality science holds great promise for the scientific study and applied use of customized behavior-change interventions. To facilitate this development, we propose a classification system that divides psychological targeting into two approaches that differ in the process by which interventions are designed: audience-to-content matching or content-to-audience matching. This system is both integrative and generative: It allows us to (a) integrate existing research on personalized interventions from different psychological subdisciplines (e.g., political, educational, organizational, consumer, and clinical and health psychology) and to (b) articulate open questions that generate promising new avenues for future research. Our objective is to infuse personality science into intervention research and encourage cross-disciplinary collaborations within and outside of psychology. To ensure the development of personality-customized interventions aligns with the broader interests of individuals (and society at large), we also address important ethical considerations for the use of psychological targeting (e.g., privacy, self-determination, and equity) and offer concrete guidelines for researchers and practitioners.

Personality and burnout complaints: The mediating role of proactive burnout prevention behaviors at work

The aim of this study is to gain insight into how and why certain personality traits are related to experiencing burnout complaints. Drawing on insights from a stimulus-organism-response (SOR) model of personality and affect and conservation of resources (COR) theory, we specifically focus on the role of five proactive behaviors to prevent burnout (PBPBs) at work. Two research questions are addressed: (1) How are the HEXACO personality traits related to burnout complaints, and (2) to what extent do the PBPBs aimed at increasing resources act as mediators between the engagement dimensions of personality and burnout complaints. We set up a two-wave survey examining HEXACO personality, PBPBs at work, and burnout complaints in a sample of 172 employees. For our analyses we relied on multiple regression analyses and structural equation modeling. Our analyses revealed that employees high on Extraversion and Conscientiousness and low on Emotionality are less inclined to experience burnout complaints. For the trait of Conscientiousness, this could be partly explained because conscientious employees demonstrate more proactive behavior aimed at maintaining or increasing job control. Our research contributes to the burnout and personality literature as we offer insight into why specific personality dimensions are related to burnout complaints. Specific proactive behaviors aimed at increasing job resources appeared to play a small, yet relevant role in this respect, specifically for Conscientiousness. By studying the relationship between personality and behavior in association with burnout complaints, this study adds to our understanding of personalized preventive actions in the work context that can reduce burnout complaints.

Experience and Impact of COVID-19 on a Newly Formed Rural University Medical Office: Survey Study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic had large social effects, particularly in the fields of medicine and medical education. Medical organizations in the United States operate in overlapping contexts with interrelated goals inside multiple organizations, and the context of work strongly influenced how organizations were able to respond to COVID-19 restrictions.

OBJECTIVE

This research examines the experience and impact of COVID-19 on the implementation of a Health Resources and Services Administration grant in a newly formed university medical office with the interrelated goals of health policy, health outreach, and medical education. The goal is to understand how COVID-19 created different experiences and challenges for leaders and their collaborators working in medical education compared to those working in public health outreach or health policy.

METHODS

A survey about COVID-19 opportunities and challenges was administered to work unit leaders and their project collaborators. The most common experiences and challenges are shown, direct educational and other respondents' experiences and challenges are compared, and open-ended comment segments are analyzed.

RESULTS

Helping others adjust to digital work, remoteness, and coordination were common experiences during COVID-19. Common challenges include coordination and an inability to make comparisons to previous program years. On average, respondents had 11.3 (SD 7.8) experiences and 8.3 (SD 6.9) challenges considered in the survey. While all units were influenced by COVID-19 restrictions, medical education units had more experiences and challenges. Those involved directly in medical education experienced 69% (18.6/27) of their possible experiences and 54% (14.7/27) of their possible challenges on average compared to 35% (7/20) and 21% (4.2/20) among other respondents (P<.001). COVID-19 restrictions increased the complexity of project work and presented challenges, especially in terms of coordinating responses and access to locations.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that COVID-19 made the overall administration of programs more complex and drew attention from other medical and public health programs. While remoteness is appropriate for some medical education tasks, it is less appropriate for clinical learning. Remoteness presents an especially large challenge to clinical education. Employees now have expectations for remoteness to be built into programs and workplaces. Program administrators will have to integrate remoteness' benefits and drawbacks into their organization for the foreseeable future.

Exploring the relationship between working from home, mental and physical health and wellbeing: a systematic review

Background

Understanding the impact of working from home on health and wellbeing is of great interest to employers and employees alike, with a strong need for up-to-date guidance. The aim of this systematic review was to identify, appraise and synthesise existing research evidence that explores the impact of home working on health and wellbeing outcomes for working people and health inequalities in the population.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of qualitative, quantitative and observational studies. We searched databases, reference lists and UK grey literature and completed citation searching of included papers. We extracted and tabulated key data from the included papers and synthesised narratively. Factors associated with the health and wellbeing of people working at home reported in the literature were displayed by constructing mind maps of each individual factor which had been identified. The findings were combined with an a priori model to develop a final model, which was validated in consultation with stakeholders.

Results

Of 96 studies which were found to meet the inclusion criteria for the review, 30 studies were published before the COVID-19 pandemic and a further 66 were published during the pandemic. The quality of evidence was limited by the study designs employed by the authors, with the majority of studies being cross-sectional surveys (n = 59). For the most part, for studies which collected quantitative data, measures were self-reported. The largest volume of evidence identified consisted of studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic which looked at factors which influence the relationship between working from home and measures relating to mental health and wellbeing. Fifteen studies which considered the potential for working at home to have different effects for different subgroups suggested that working at home may have more negative consequences during the COVID-19 pandemic for women and in particular, mothers. There was very little evidence on age (two studies), ethnicity (one study), education or income (two studies) in terms of moderating home working effects, and very limited evidence from before the COVID-19 pandemic. The concept of enforced working from home and having 'no choice' was reported in only one paper prior to the pandemic and two papers reporting on working from home as a result of COVID-19. However, the concept of lack of choice around working from home was implicit in much of the literature - even though it was not directly measured. There were no clear patterns of wellbeing measures which changed from positive to negative association (or vice versa) during the pandemic.

Limitations

The quality of the evidence base was very much limited by study designs, particularly for studies published during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the majority of studies consisting of data collected by cross-sectional surveys (often online). Due to the rapidly expanding nature of the evidence on this topic, it is possible that new studies were published after the final citation searches were conducted.

Discussion

The evidence base for the factors which influence the relationship between home working and health-related outcomes has expanded significantly as a result of the need for those whose work could be done from home to work at home during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings suggest that there are factors relating to the external context, the role of employers and the circumstances of the employee which contribute to determining whether someone works at home and what the associated impacts on health and wellbeing may be. Learning from the COVID-19 lockdown experience will be important to inform future policy on home and hybrid working.

Future work

There is a need for better-quality studies of the health impact of home working, in particularly studies which recruit a range of participants who are representative of the working population and which are designed to minimise sampling/recruitment biases and response biases.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (project reference 18/93 PHR Public Health Review Team) and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 11, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021253474.

"Why couldn't we do this more often?": exploring the feasibility of virtual and distributed work in product design engineering

Lower costs and higher employee satisfaction are some of the benefits driving organizations to adopt dispersed and virtual working arrangements. Despite these advantages, product design engineering teams-those who develop physical products-have not widely adopted this working style due to perceived critical dependence on physical facilities and the belief that it is ineffective to communicate technical details virtually. This paper uses the mass shift in working conditions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic to explore the feasibility of virtual and distributed work in product design engineering. We conducted 20 semi-structured interviews with product design engineers working virtually to uncover current challenges of, and the beginning of promising strategies for, effective virtual engineering work. We categorize and analyze Tangible Design activities, Intangible Design activities, and Communication and Project Management activities throughout the product design process. Contrary to present opinions, we found that much of a product design engineer's work is realizable in a virtual and distributed setting. However, there are still many challenges, especially when attempting Tangible Design activities-those that require physical products and tools-from home. These challenges, missing from existing virtual product design engineering literature, include but are not limited to individuals' lessened sense of accountability, fewer de-risking opportunities before product sign-off, and limited supervision of production staff. Product design engineers described novel strategies that emerged organically to mitigate these challenges, such as creating digital alternatives for engineering reviews and sign-offs and leveraging rapid prototyping. Recent advances in technology, an increased commitment to reducing environmental impact, and better work-life balance expectations from new generations of workers will only push society faster towards a distributed working model. Thus, it is critical that we use this opportunity to understand the existing challenges for distributed product design engineers, so that organizations can best prepare and become resilient to future shocks.