W12: Persons and Situations

Question 1

Persons and Situations:

Within personality and social psychology … …

Answer 1

personality psychologists have tended to focus more on the person

social psychologists have tended to focus more on the situation

… … when describing or explaining behaviour

Question 2

Kurt Lewin’s (1936) ‘field theory’

B = f( P, E)

Answer 2

Behaviour is a function of:

1) The person
(e. g., needs, belief, values, abilities, i.e., personality

2) The environment,
especially the social environment (or the ‘psychological field’)

Question 3

Persons and Situations

Post World War II… a shift in focus from dispositional factors to powerful siutational drivers of behaviour

Answer 3

Social Influence

Stanford Prison Experiment

Milgram’s (1963) obedience studies…

Asch’s (1951) conformity studies…

Question 4

The Rise of Situationism:

Key claims that the rise has abt personality

Answer 4

Two key claims:
1) Personality a weak predictor of behaviour (r ~ .30).

2) Behaviour varies considerably over situations.

Conclusion:
The concept of a personality trait is “untenable”. Behaviour is largely driven by situations.

Question 5

Growth of situationist “spin-off” theories…

The Fundamental Attribution Error
Ross, 1977
?

Answer 5

also called “correspondance bias”; Gilbert & Malone, 1995

People mistakenly explain behaviour in terms of dispositional factors rather than to situational factors

Question 6

Growth of situationist “spin-off” theories…

The Conceptual Similarity Critique
Shweder (1975)

Answer 6

“How people classify” is mistaken as “how to classify people”

Coherence of personality traits simply reflect judgements of conceptual similarity

Question 7

Situationism evaluated:

Claims (2)

Answer 7

Claim #1: “Personality is a weak predictor of behaviour (r ~ .30).”

Claim #2: “Behaviour varies considerably over situations.”
(of cos.
we have never heard of a trait theorist
who disagreed.” (Rorer & Widiger, 1983))

Question 8

Situationism evaluated:

Claim #1: “Personality is a weak predictor of behaviour (r ~ .30).”

Answer 8

Yes and no:
Indeed, traits rarely predict behaviour much beyond r = .30

Notice the built-in assumptions here:
1) That traits are imperfect predictors does not mean that personality is “untenable”, or that situations are better predictors.

2) In fact, effects of situations on behaviour turned out to be, on average, no stronger than that of traits

Question 9

Consistency of behaviour…

Single instance VS aggregation across occasions

Answer 9

Mischel (1968):
behaviour on one occasion is unrelated to that behaviour on a second occasion; thus personality can’t exist

Aggregation across measurement occasions increases reliability, which is requisite for assessing consistency/ stability

Question 10

Epstein (1979):

Consistency of behavior as a function of aggregation across four diary studies…

Answer 10

Daily ratings of behaviour and experience…

For 7/8 behaviours consistency increases with aggregation

Question 11

Epstein (1979):
Consistency of behavior as a function of aggregation across four diary studies…
S33

Answer 11

Daily ratings of behaviour and experience…

For 7/8 behaviours consistency increases with aggregation

Question 12

Thin slices” paradigm – samples of behaviour across various controlled situations

Borkenau et al. (2004)

Answer 12

Self- and peer-reports of B5 personality traits

15 x videotaped behaviour in different situations,
120 judges provided ratings of behaviour based on the video footage

Main findings:
Stability of cross-situational behaviour increased as a function of aggregation

Relations between other-rated personality and behaviour increased as a function of aggregation

Question 13

Personality:

Consistency over time

Answer 13

Consistency over time, not over situations, is most relevant to the concept of a trait (Roberts, 2009)

Rank order stability (test-restest reliability) of personality is high [week 10]

Predictive validity in longitudinal studies is high, e.g., conscientiousness

Question 14

Situationism retreats…
ard 1990s
as:

Answer 14

Trait-behaviour correlates not ‘weak’…

Flexibility in behaviour across situations not incompatible with personality stability…

Question 15

Refutation of ‘anti-personality’ theories

Answer 15

e. g., Disconfirmation of “Conceptual Similarity Critique” (Romer & Revelle, 1984)
e. g., Disconfirmation of the “Fundamental Attribution Error” in landmark meta-analysis of 173 studies (Malle, 2006)

Question 16

“situational strength” hypothesis

Answer 16

Personality will cease to predict behaviour in “strong situations”

strong situation’ is characterized by…

1) Clear behavioural expectations
2) Incentives for compliance (or threats for non-compliance)
3) Individual ability to meet the demands of the situation

Question 17

“situational strength” hypothesis

not supported?
Milgram study

Answer 17

35% nv follow under strong situations
found:
Authoritarianism: more obedience from those who respect and value authority

Locus of control: more obedience from those with an external locus of control

Question 18

“situational strength” hypothesis

Recent conceptual replication of Milgram study

Answer 18

Television game show scenario
Authority figure = host
Teacher/Learner = contestants

Larger shocks predicted by
Agreeableness, r = .26, p = .0239
Conscientiousness, r = .34, p = .006

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

Question 19

“situational strength” hypothesis

against

Answer 19

Virtually no studies directly assess situational strength dimensions, i.e., participants’ perceptions of:

1. Behavioural expectations
2. Incentives for compliance
3. Ability to meet the demands

based more on the plausibility of the hypothesis and sheer repetition than on any empirical evidence.

Question 20

Trait Activation Theory

Answer 20

Trait-relevant situations strengthen trait-behaviour associations (Tett & Burnett, 2003)

Personality traits are probabilistic descriptions arising in response to broad classes of stimuli and situations (DeYoung, 2015)

Question 21

Trait Activation Theory

Support for ‘situational strength

Answer 21

All of the big five predicted job performance more strongly in ‘weak’ job situations:

When work was unstructured, when employees had decision-making autonomy, etc

Question 22

Trait Activation Theory

support for ‘trait activation’

Answer 22

In ‘strong’ situations that were trait-relevant, specific trait-performance effects increased:

1) Extraversion when social skills demands were high
2) Openness when creativity/innovation demands were high
3) Conscientiousness when attention to detail required

Joint effects of persons and situations rather than a presumed person-situation competition

Question 23

“Person situation transactions”:
3
Furr & Funder, 2017

Answer 23

Situational selection
Situational evocation
Situational perception

Question 24

Situational selection

Answer 24

Situational selection:
Where traits predict entering a strong or consequential situation
e.g., extraversion and accidents (Nettle, 2005)

Question 25

Situational evocation

Answer 25

Situational evocation:
Where traits impact on the dynamics of a particular situation
e.g., effects of traits on divorce (Solomon & Jackson, 2014)

Question 26

Situational perception

Answer 26

Situational perception:
Where traits shape appraisals of a situation, and thus an individual’s experience of that situation, e.g.,
agreeableness -> opportunities to cooperate;

Question 27

Reciprocal effects of traits and social environments

Answer 27

affects the appraisal of the situation and then reaction to the situation

Question 28

Big Eight “DIAMONDS” model
for describing situations

Rauthman et al., (2014)

Answer 28

Duty: Job

Intelect: invovles intellectual or cognitive stimuli

Adversity: Someone is being criticized

Mating

pOitivity: potentially enjoyable

Negativity: potentially anxiety-inducing

Deception: possible to deceive someone

Sociality:
Close personal relationships are present

Question 29

Big Eight “DIAMONDS” model
for describing situations

Rauthman et al., (2014)
Key findings

Answer 29

State expressions (behavior/experience) vary widely between and within participants

Traits and situations were both predictors of behaviour and experience
Effect sizes very similar

Personality traits also predicted situational experience (Situation selection? Situation perception?)