Randy J. Larsen
Introduction
Randy J. Larsen is an American personality psychologist and the William R. Stuckenberg Professor of Human Values and Moral Development at Washington University in St. Louis, where he has chaired the Department of Psychology since 2004. His research has been concerned with the emotional side of personality: why some people experience their emotions more strongly than others, why extraverts and neurotics react differently to the same events, and what people actually do to get themselves out of a bad mood.
He is known to a wider audience for two things. The first is the construct of affect intensity — the idea that individuals differ reliably in how strongly they respond emotionally, independent of whether their emotions are pleasant or unpleasant. The second is Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge About Human Nature, the textbook he has written with David M. Buss and which, in its eighth edition (2024), is one of the standard introductions to the field. That book reorganised how personality is taught, replacing the traditional arrangement around grand theories with a framework of six domains of knowledge about personality functioning.
Early Life and Education
Larsen took an unusually indirect route into academic psychology. He worked his way through Loras College in Dubuque, Iowa, driving a hearse for a local funeral home, and graduated with a bachelor's degree in psychology in 1976. He then spent a year at a residential treatment centre in Chicago for emotionally disturbed adolescents who were wards of the state, an experience that left him with a lasting interest in how people manage distress.
He took a master's degree in clinical psychology at Duquesne University and then worked for a programme that provided crisis intervention support to police officers responding to calls in several Pittsburgh suburbs. That work — entering unpredictable situations at their worst moment — gave him a working knowledge of emotional crisis before he had any formal research training in it.
He went on to doctoral study at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign intending to specialise in social ecology. By what he has described as chance, he began working with Ed Diener, who had just returned from a sabbatical with a new interest in what makes people happy and was launching the research programme that became the modern study of subjective well-being. Larsen shifted his focus to personality and emotion and received his Ph.D. in personality psychology in 1984.
Academic and Professional Career
Larsen held faculty positions at Purdue University and the University of Michigan before moving to Washington University in St. Louis in 1998. He became chair of the psychology department there in 2004.
His early career was recognised quickly. The National Institute of Mental Health gave him a Research Scientist Development Award in 1987, and in 1992 the American Psychological Association gave him its Distinguished Scientific Achievement Award for Early Career Contributions to Personality Psychology. He was elected president of the Midwestern Psychological Association in 2000. He has served as an associate editor at the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, and on the editorial boards of the Journal of Research in Personality, the Review of General Psychology, and the Journal of Personality. He is a fellow of both the Association for Psychological Science and the American Psychological Association. His research has been funded by the NIMH, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute on Aging, the McDonnell Foundation for Cognitive Neuroscience, and the Solon Summerfield Foundation.
Later in his career he received a large National Institute on Aging grant for a five-year study of emotion in older adults, building on a finding from his laboratory that emotionally charged stimuli capture and hold attention more effectively than neutral ones, and on the question of whether that attentional advantage survives into old age. He has also taught an undergraduate course he designed on the psychology of early adulthood.
Major Contributions to Psychology
Affect intensity
With Diener, Larsen argued in a 1987 review that the strength of people's emotional reactions is a stable individual characteristic. Some people react to a good outcome with mild satisfaction and to a bad one with mild irritation; others react to the same outcomes with elation and despair. Larsen and Diener called this affect intensity and treated it as a dimension distinct from the hedonic tone of a person's life — one can be high in affect intensity and either happy or unhappy. The construct gave personality psychology a way to talk about emotional reactivity as a trait, and the Affect Intensity Measure derived from it has been used widely.
Emotional susceptibility and the Big Five
In work with Timothy Ketelaar, Larsen tested a specific prediction: that personality traits function partly as differences in susceptibility to particular emotional states. In a 1991 study, extraverts proved more reactive to a positive mood induction and individuals high in neuroticism more reactive to a negative one. This was an important result because it reframed traits from tendencies to behave in certain ways into tendencies to respond emotionally to certain kinds of situation — a formulation that connects trait psychology to the experimental study of emotion.
Mood regulation
Larsen's later work turned from describing emotional differences to the question of what people do about them. In a 2000 paper in Psychological Inquiry he set out an agenda for the study of mood regulation: identifying the strategies people use to escape unpleasant moods, the conditions under which each works, and the individual differences that predict which strategies people deploy. This positioned him at the intersection of personality and clinical psychology, and it anticipated the much larger contemporary literature on emotion regulation.
The asymmetry of positive and negative experience
A recurring finding in Larsen's work is that negative events occupy attention and memory longer than positive ones. People rehearse bad events more than good ones, which helps explain why a criticism received years earlier can continue to intrude while praise is forgotten. He has used this as evidence for a general asymmetry in how the mind handles valence, and it connects his work to the broader literature on negativity bias.
The six domains of knowledge
The textbook's organising scheme is probably his most widely encountered contribution. Rather than introducing students to personality through Freud, Rogers, Skinner, and the other grand theorists in sequence, Larsen and Buss organised the field around six domains in which knowledge about personality has accumulated: the dispositional domain (traits and trait taxonomies), the biological domain (genetics, physiology, evolution), the intrapsychic domain (psychoanalytic approaches, motives), the cognitive–experiential domain (cognition, emotion, the self), the social and cultural domain (social interaction, sex and gender, culture), and the adjustment domain (stress, coping, disorders). The scheme treats grand theories as contributions to particular domains rather than as competing total frameworks.
Major Publications
- Larsen, R. J. & Diener, E. (1987). "Affect intensity as an individual response characteristic: A review." Journal of Research in Personality, 21(1), 1–39.
- Larsen, R. J. & Ketelaar, T. (1991). "Personality and susceptibility to positive and negative emotional states." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(1), 132–140.
- Larsen, R. J. (2000). "Toward a science of mood regulation." Psychological Inquiry, 11(3), 129–141.
- Larsen, R. J. & Buss, D. M. (2024). Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge About Human Nature (8th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
- Larsen, R. J. & Prizmic, Z. (2004). "Affect regulation." In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory, and Applications. New York: Guilford Press.
Impact and Legacy
Larsen's influence is distributed across two quite different activities, and they are evaluated differently by the field.
His research on affect intensity helped establish that emotional reactivity is a measurable dimension of personality rather than noise around a person's mood level, and the affective susceptibility work with Ketelaar supplied a mechanism for how traits translate into experience. Those ideas are now part of the standard account of how personality and emotion are connected.
The textbook is a different kind of contribution, and it carries a different kind of criticism. Its six-domain framework has been extremely successful pedagogically and has shaped how a generation of students encounters the field. The objection to it is that it is a taxonomy rather than a theory. Organising findings into six domains is useful for teaching, but it does not specify how the domains relate to one another, which is causally upstream, or what follows if a person is high on one and low on another. Competing frameworks — most notably Dan McAdams's three-level model of dispositional traits, characteristic adaptations, and narrative identity, which does make claims about how the levels interact — offer less comprehensive coverage but more in the way of prediction. Whether the domains framework functions as a theory of personality or as a very good filing system remains a live question.
The affect intensity construct has drawn its own criticism. Because the Affect Intensity Measure's positive and negative subscales often behave differently, and because the overall score correlates substantially with extraversion and neuroticism — the two broad factors that account for most of the variance in personality measures — critics have asked whether affect intensity is a distinct construct or largely a blend of the Big Two. Larsen and Diener's position is that reactivity is a property of the response system itself and is therefore not reducible to the traits that predict its direction; the debate has not been settled by data that cleanly separates the two accounts.
A further limitation is shared with most of personality psychology: the programme rests heavily on self-report. Larsen's participants describe their own moods, their own reactivity, and their own regulation strategies, and retrospective reports of emotional experience are reconstructions rather than recordings. Experience sampling has reduced but not removed the problem.
Finally, his findings on the asymmetry between positive and negative events are robust as findings, but the broader claim that bad is simply stronger than good — a claim popularised well beyond his own work — has proved more contested than its popular presentation suggests, with meta-analytic evidence indicating that the size and even the direction of negativity effects depend heavily on the domain and the measure.
None of this diminishes the specific contribution, which was to insist that personality is, in large part, a set of differences in emotional life, and that those differences can be measured.
Learn More
References
- Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1987). Affect intensity as an individual difference characteristic. In Review of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 9). Sage.