Character Trouble in Times of Metascientific Trouble

Abstract In this critical response to John Doris’s book “ Character Trouble: Undisciplined Essays on Moral Agency and Personality ,” I analyze his updated take on character skepticism—the view that character traits have surprisingly limited influence on behavior across diverse situations—from a philosophy of science perspective. While I find his updated view compelling, I challenge his reliance on Cohen’s conventional effect size benchmarks, arguing that qualitative labels for effect sizes obscure rather than clarify the practical significance of results. I propose that Doris’s strongest argument lies in what I call the “disproportion thesis”—the view that personality variables exert less influence, and situational variables more influence, on behavior than our intuitive expectations would predict, creating a disconcerting gap. However, I argue that this thesis requires a more explicit quantification of those prior expectations. I conclude that character skepticism would benefit from formulations of its insights in a way that directly addresses character theorists’ empirical commitments, avoiding vague benchmarks and contextualizing effects.