Ten steps toward a better personality science – a rejoinder to the comments

We respond to the comments (https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.9227) on our “Ten Steps” paper (https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.6029), focusing on the most prominent themes: (1) What motivates scientists?, (2) Consensus-building (Is our field ready? May there be adverse side-effects? How shall we do it?), (3) How may institutional change be facilitated?, (4) Diversity (of participants, stimuli, methodology, measures, and among researchers), (5) The reliability of our proposed scoring system, and (6) The real-world relevance of personality research. We stand by our call for more concerted consensus-building and offer a few clarifications in this regard. We also issue four specific calls to action to our colleagues in the field: (a) specify legitimate paths to greater consensus, (b) explicate what constitutes good “qualitative” research, (c) help establish a widely used, public domain item database, and (d) determine what the most important contemporary goals of personality research are. peerReviewed publishedVersion