Lecture 12: persons and situations

Question 1

what was kurt lewin’s field theory?

Answer 1

B = f(P,E)

behaviour is a function of the person (values, beliefs, abilities) X the environment (social environment or psychological field)

Question 2

Persons and situations

what did WWII shift?
= what was this phenomenon called

2 studies showing this phenomenon

Answer 2

-> focus from dispositional factors to powerful situational drivers of behaviour (e.g. the situation of Hitler and nazi Germany - the impact it had on a large collective group of individuals)

= social influence (how behaviour is influenced by the social situation)

1. milgrams obedience studies (delivering shocks)
2. asch’s conformity studies (comparing lines A, B, C - conforming with other’s opinions)

Question 3

What happened in the stanford prison experiment?

bad people or bad situation?

according to zimardo?

______________

Carnahan and Mcfarland (2007)

• advert
• trait scores

Answer 3

aborted after 6 days

prisoners = revolt 
guards = sadistic 

Zimbardo = power of a bad situation to overwhelm the personalities and good upbringing of even the best and brightest

___________

advertisement

1. prison life
2. control
3. participants who chose this scored significantly higher on:

aggression, narcissism, authoritarianism, social dominance, machiavellanism

and lower on:

empathy and alturism

Question 4

the rise of situationism

“personality and assessment” by Mischel

2 key claims

conclusion

Answer 4

1. personality a weak predictor of behaviour .30
2. behaviour varies considerably over situations

the concept of a personality trait is ‘untenable’. behaviour is largely driven by situations

=(people are chameleons)

Question 5

the rise of situationism

impact-reputation of personality psychologists in response to situatioism?

• roberts
• mcadams
• thayler

Answer 5

• > studies looking at goals, achievement motivation, self-concept structures (indistinguishable from triats) continued but were called something different (due to stigma)
• > personality psychology could only be referred to as either clinical or social
• > michel showed there was no such thing as a stable personality

Question 6

the rise of situationism : growth of situationist “spin-off” theories

whats the fundamental attribution error (ross), also called the correspondance bias (gilbert and alone)?

Answer 6

-> people mistakenly explain behaviour in terms of dispositional factors rather than to situational factors

Question 7

the rise of situationism :

• > how did participants respond to milgram (shock) in ross’ study?
• > what were their predicted rates
• > what were the actual rates of disobedience form the original milgram study?

Answer 7

• > participants assumed that the particular subject’s obedience reflected his distinguishing personal dispositions rather than the potency of situational pressures and constraints
• > predicted: more disobedience as shock level increases = people assume that the different situational factors wouldn’t have much of an impact

-> disobedience increased after 300 volts “c” shape
= very obedient until shocks got intense

Question 8

the rise of situationism: the growth of situationist more “spin-off” theories

1. shweder “the conceptual similarity critique”
   - what is mistaken?
2. is conceptual similarity plausible?
3. what did romer and revelle reveal about this?

Answer 8

1. -> ‘how people classify’ is mistaken as ‘how to classify people’

= coherence of personality traits simply reflects judgements of conceptual similarity

e.g. ample, large and bulky go together NOT because they similarly describe a target but because they similarly describe a concept

(only conceptual similarity not target similarity)

2. -> might explain why 2 questionnaire items are closely correlated for a single measure of a personality trait
   =e.g. C = keep things tidy and follow a schedule

• > but can it explain why 2 people are rated differently on those questionnaire items?
  3. items are more strongly correlated with behaviour ratings (.91) than concept similarity ratings (.63)

Question 9

Situationism evaluated:

1. personality is a weak predictor of behaviour .30
2. Michell actually overestimated the effect size of personality, what is the real effect size?
3. whats the effect size of social influence studies (situation)

Answer 9

1. while traits rarely predict behaviour beyond .30

this does NOT suggest:
- situations are better than predictors

effects of situations on behaviour are actually NO stronger than that of traits

2. .21
3. .13, it’s less than personality!

Question 10

Situationism evaluated:

1. behaviour varies considerably over situations
2. Allport
3. = Michelle was arguing a straw man - whats this mean?
4. BUT, while flexibility of behaviour is assumed, we also assume…?
   Q?

Answer 10

1. yes it does

= we have never heard of a trait theories who disagreed

2. -> traits dont apply to all situations
   - > idea was around since 1930s
3. = cross-situational flexibility of behaviour is not incompatible with trait theory (no need to argue then!)
4. consistency, it is implicit to the concept of a trait
   Q = is there are cross-situational consistency of behaviour?

Question 11

consistency of behaviour

1. what did epstein say about mischel?
   - > why unreliable?
   - > what does aggregation mean and why is it important?
2. describe epstein’s study: daily ratings of behaviour and experience
3. peer ratings compared to self reports

Answer 11

1. only focused on a single instance of behaviour -> a behaviour on one occasion, unrelated to that behaviour on a second occasion

• > a single instance cannot be measured reliably
• > adding up instances across occasions increases reliability, to determine a reliable pattern = consistency + stability (this is why many items are used on personality questionnaires - like big 5)

= only when something’s reliable is it consistent -> test-retest stability

2. studied consistency of behaviour as a function of aggregation across 4 diary studies
   - > reliability of measures increased as day number increased
   - > for single/a couple of instances of behaviour = low reliability, thus consistency
   - > aggregation of multiple occasions =high reliability, thus consistency
3. consistent with self-reports
   =7/8 consistency increases with aggregation

Question 12

Consistency of behaviour

1. what is the “thin slices” paradigm?
2. bnorkenau study, self and peer reports of B5

= results

Answer 12

1. glimpses of behaviour across various controlled situations
2. twin study (not relevant to genetics - just the sample he had)
   - behaviour videotaped across multiple situations

= stability of cross-sitational behaviour increased as a function of aggregation (replicating epstein’s results)

peer rating=relations between other rated personality and behaviour increased as a function of aggregation (peer rating lined up with self reports)

Question 13

consistency and flexibility of behaviour

1. what are experience sampling methods (ESM)?
2. fleeson experiment
3. results

Answer 13

1. techniques for assessing behaviours/experiences multiple times a day, several days a week (e.g. electronic phone assessments)
2. phone surveys 5x per day for 13 days
   = described personality state expressions over the last hour
   = coding for B5
3. individuals vary over time and space in their state expressions
   - > for E responded frequently with 4 = but also lots of variation (less frequently scored 1 or 7)

= but are HIGHLY stable

= average personality state in week 1 predicted average personality states in week 2

-> for E: average level at week 1 was 5, and also at week 2 (most data points around 5)

Question 14

consistency and flexibility of behaviour

• > average levels of personality state….?
• > meta-analysis results for states

Answer 14

-> are well predicted by personality trait questionnaires

->
E = .42
N = .53
O/I = .42
A = .54
C = .48

Question 15

so… no paradox after all?

what did sherman (2015) conclude about consistency and flexibility of behaviour (2)

personality is to _____ as behaviour/experience is to _______

Answer 15

a) personality traits are useful for predicting state expression across many situations
b) a single state expression by a given individual in a specific situation is substantially dependent on the characteristics of the situation

= personality is to climate, as behaviour/experience is to weather

Question 16

consistency over time or situations?

rank order stability is?

predictive validity in longitudinal studies it?

Answer 16

consistency over time, not situations

• rank order stability (test-retest reliability) of personality is HIGH
• predictive validity is HIGH
  e.g. C
  = health longevity, achievement in education and work environments etc

Question 17

situationism retreats

what refutes

a. conceptual similarity critique?
b. fundemantal attribution error

Answer 17

a. personality more strongly correlated with behaviour ratings (.91) than concept similarity ratings (.63) = romer and revelle
b. malle meta-analysis of 173 studies

= a waste of time!

Question 18

what did mischel revise situationism to?

however, really this is referred to as ____?

Answer 18

interactionism = traits and situations influence behaviour in combination

= situationism light

Question 19

1. what is situationism light?
2. whats a strong situation? (3)
3. whats the traffic light analogy?

Answer 19

1.both traits and situations influence behaviour, but personality will cease to predict behaviour in STRONG situation
= the trait will be minimised

3. clear behavioural expectations
4. incentives for compliance
5. individual ability to meet the demands of the situation
6. red light = clear expectations, incentives for compliance (fine)

amber light = muddled expectations. some slow down and stop, others speed through. no incentive for compliance (no fine)

= we should see more individual differences in the amber light situation compared to the red

Question 20

1. situational strength to understand the milgram study

= what should we therefore see?

2. but what did the results show?

what were the effects of personality measured by milgram?

-> whats a locus of control?

Answer 20

1. to study behaviour in a strong situation of deep consequence for the participants

= little difference In participant results

2. situation didn’t completely drive behaviour - 65% delivered a maximum shock, 35% didn’t = individual variability (not what mischel hypothesised)

authoritarianism = more obedience from those who respect and value authority

locus of control = more obedience from those with an external locus of control

-> belief that external forces play more of a dominant role than internal

Question 21

situational strength: replication of milgram study

1. design
2. results

what does this mean for the situational strength argument (mischel)

3. do these studies test the situational strength hypothesis? (cooper and withey)

Answer 21

1. television game show
2. large shocks predicted by:
   A = .26, p .023
   C = .34, p.006

= above-average trait-behaviour effects emerge even in ‘strong’ situations

3. virtually no studies directly assess situational strength dimension
   i. e. behavioural expectations, incentives for compliance and ability to meet the demands

= the hypothesis is not based on real empirical evidence (it’s merely based on plausibility)

Question 22

is situation strength the best way to conceptualise person x situation interactions?

|
|     \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ /
|                          /
|                        /
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

/ = sit 1 = personality x behaviour
_ = sit 2 = no relationship between personality x behaviour

1. situationist description
2. dispositionalist description

Answer 22

1. situation 2 is a strong situation - it cancels out the relationship between personality and behaviour (sit 1)
2. situation 2 = a strong personality trait

situation 2 radically changes behaviour for low scores on the trait (situation 1), it has 0 impact on behaviour for higher scores (situation 1) (= no effect of the strong situation)

= so its not the situation, but a strong trait thats cancelling out the effects of the situation

Question 23

is situation strength the best way to conceptualise person x situation interactions?

|                  /
|     \_\_\_\_  /\_\_\_\_\_\_
|              /
|            /
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

/ = sit 1 = personality x behaviour
_ = sit 2 = no relationship between personality x behaviour

1. situationist description
2. dispositionalist description

Answer 23

1. situation 2 is a strong situation, it cancels out the relation between personality and behaviour
2. on average there is not effect of the situation (where lines cross)
   its influence on behaviour/experience depends entirely on personality
   i.e. situation 2 increases behaviour for some people (high end) but decreases it for others (low end)

Question 24

what’s trait activation theory?

1. • tedd and Burnett
2. • deyoung

Answer 24

strong situations activate relevant personality effects

1. • latent (non active) traits are activated by trait-relevant situations
     - a trait won’t manifest until the person is in the relevant situation
     - > e.g. at home reading, no anxiety. In public, on a busy train = anxiety presentation

• trait relevant situations strengthen trait-behaviour associations

2. • traits are probabilistic descriptions of regularities in behaviour and experience
     - they arise in response to broad classes of stimuli and situations

Question 25

trait activation theory

a meta-analysis of personality and job performance across several hundred studies

1. -> support for situational strength
2. -> support for trait activation

Answer 25

1. all B5 predicted job performance more strongly in ‘weak’ job situations
   - > when work was unstructured, when employees had decision making autonomy
2. in ‘strong’ situations that were trait-relevant, specific trait performance effects increased
   - > E = when social skill demand were high
   - > O = when creativity/innovation demands were high
   - > C = when attention to detail was required

Question 26

interactionism today ?

• > contextual
• > within-person variation and between
• > questions for generality

Answer 26

joint effects of persons and situation

• > contextual aspects of personality (characteristic adaptations)
• > methods for studying both e.g. experience sampling methods (ESM)

-> for WHOM is the effects of a situation more strong?
= obedience and authoritarianism (blass)
-> WHEN or WHERE are effects of personality strongest
= conscientiousness and effort-related job performance + E

Question 27

interactionism today

1. situation selection
2. situation evocation/transformation
3. situation perception

Answer 27

1. where traits predict entering a strong or consequential situation
   = openness and study abroad
2. where traits impact on the dynamics of a particular situation
   = effects of traits on divorce
3. where traits shape appraisals (evaluation) of a situation, and thus an individual’s experience of that situation
   A -> opportunities to co-operate
   N -> negativity and frustrations
   O/I -> intelligently engaging

Question 28

situation selection

matz & Harari 2020
2 conditions
questions (2)

Answer 28

= assessed B5 traits prior to each study and states 4x a day
= assessed places visited 4x a day

1. do personality traits predict the places people visit?
2. do the places people visit predict behaviour (personality states)?

Question 29

situation selection

1. personality traits predicting where people visited (more likely to choose…)
2. places visited predicting personality states
3. places visited predicting personality states when controlling for traits
   (e. g. controlling for the fact that people high on E are more likely to be in a bar, the effect on being in a bar on E is)

Answer 29

1. bar = E

gym = C

home = small effect of E (less likely)

work = C and N

2. campus = O

gym/work = C

cafe/friend/campus/bar = E

3. much smaller effects
   e. g. bar = E (1sd smaller) -> still E more likely to have high E state

= shows transaction between person x situation
= situation is affecting behaviour, but personality predicting the situations that people put themselves in

Question 30

what is situation psychologically?

Rauthman (2014) taxonomy (measure) for situational characteristics (liek the B5)

Answer 30

DIAMONDS model

Duty - work/job needs to be done

Intelect - situation includes intellectual/cognitive stimuli

Adversity - someones being criticised

Mating

Positivity - enjoyable situation

Negativity

Deception - possible to deceive someone

Sociality - close personal relationships are present

Question 31

Persons and situations

Sherman - compared B5 traits and situations (DIAMONDS) as predictor of behaviours and affects

key findings?

Answer 31

-> state expression (behaviour/experience) vary widely between AND within participants

(how much does our behaviour and experience vary throughout daily life as a function of our personality traits and the situations we are in)

-> traits and situation were both predictors of behaviour and experience
= effect sizes very similar

(e.g. being talkative would be predicted by being high on extraversion and also being in a situation characterised by sociality)