Mischel's Interactional Model of Personality
- trait studies aggregate across subjects
- they combine data from thousands of subjects for scores of traits to establish
basic traits
- traditional personality theorists aggregate across situations
- they construct broad dispositions and assume people act in similar ways in
different situations
- for both, the emphasis is on person variables
The person/situation debate
1. To what extent does behavior remain the same despite situational changes?
- role of person variables
2. To what extent does behavior change as a result of situational changes?
- role of situation variables
- theory needs to account for both consistency and inconsistency in behavior
Small, Zeldin, and Savin-Williams (1983):
- four groups of adolescents camping
- trained observers rated behavior
- level of dominance
- prosocial behavior
- observed in three situations
- camping
- mealtime
- free time
Correlations: high between situations
Limitation:
Mischel and Peake (1982)
- 1 group reported low variability in conscientiousness (self-report)
- 1 group reported high variability in conscientiousness (self-report)
1
- different peer raters agreed on ratings of conscientiousness for first group; not
for the second group
- neither group showed consistent conscientious behavior across situations
Accounting for variability in behavior:
- person variability
- situation variability
- person/situation interaction
Epstein's nonresearch example: predicting racing outcomes:
Situation 1: 50, 100, and 200 meter races
- runners who vary greatly in speed
- outcome would be accounted for by ____.
Situation 2: 50, 1000, and 5000 meter races
- runners who are highly similar in ability to run
- outcome would be accounted for by_____.
Situation 3: different types of races, e.g., dashes and hurdles
- runners who excel in one type but not the other
outcome would be accounted for by_____.
Wright & Mischel (1988)
- studied behavior of different types of children in a summer camp
- children were rated for high or low aggressiveness (HA and LA)
- situations were rated as high or low stress
- predicted aggressive behavior for HA children in high stress situations:
supported by the results
2
- none of the children behaved aggressively in low stress situations
- gave rise to the if-then understanding:
traits shape behavior in situations
- how people will behave in a given situation depends on their if-then profile
What shapes behavior?
Cognitive-affective mediating processes
(Mischel & Shoda, 1995)
1. Competencies
- kinds of skills
- level of skill
2. Encoding strategies and personal constructs
- how we view the world
3. Expectancies
- about how events relate
- about behavior outcomes
4. Subjective values
- the outcome a person wants
5. Self-regulatory systems and plans
- doing what is required to make it happen
3