Am I Me or Am I the Situation?
Does Personality Change?


Foundation of personality psychology is
personality stability and predictive utility
If personality changes this threatens the
field’s usefulness



Especially if change is random
Prediction difficult
Central debate has been whether personality
or situation better predictor
Person or Situation?

Account for 2 observations:


Behavior varies across situation
Perceive ourselves as the same person


Are we different people in different situations?
Historical emphasis on one or the other


Internal or external
Implications for methodology, Qs, etc.
Person-Situation Debate


Either Or Question
1940s, 1950s internal emphasis


Freudian personality types (anal character)
Projective techniques and trait inventories
Mischel (1968) challenge


Dissatisfied with internal emphasis on traits
Argued for situational focus



Situational changes predict behavior > traits
Ostensive personality consistency due to
situational consistencies
Learning view
Mischel (1968) challenge

Primary criticisms




Little evidence of cross-situation consistency in
behavior
Traits dependent on situational evocation
Traits poor predictors of behavior across
situations (r < = .30)
Trait merely labels w/ no independent reality
Controversy

Leads to near collapse of personality
psychology


If traits aren’t real/stable/predictive what use
are they?
No need for personality if behavior primarily
due to situational features

Predict/understand behavioral variation via situation
Field’s Response

Funder & Ozer (1983)



Reanalyzed studies showing situational
influence on behavior
Situation had ~same predictive power as
personality (r < = .30)
Power of situation = power of personality

Both rs < = .30
Activity 13: Mischel

In groups of 3-4



Describe the response to Mischel’s challenge
made by Epstein. How does Mischel (re)
challenge Epstein here?
Next describe at least 1 more response made by
the field in defense of traits.
PLEASE TURN THESE IN AFTER CLASS!
Kenrick & Funder: Fallout


PS debate led to numerous hypotheses
regarding the relative importance of
personality/situation
Many assumed that personality was an
artifact, unreal and a weak predictor
(empirically and conceptually) of behavior
Kenrick & Funder: Hypotheses

H1: Personality is in eye of beholder


Interrater agreement fails to support
H4: Shared (incorrect) stereotypes account
for rater agreement

Ratings predict independent behavioral
manifestations (aggression, delay of
gratification, social behavior)
Kenrick & Funder: Hypotheses

H7: Effect of personality on behavior too
small to be meaningful (.30)



Situational features share effect size (.30)
Small can be important & meaningful
Effect increases with aggregation
Mischel’s Fallout

1980s/90s reality/stability of traits revealed


Genetics, longitudinal, cross-cultural studies
Interactionism (nature & nurture):


Effect of personality depends on situation
Effects of situation depends on personality


Behavior = traits + situation + traits x situation
Greater external validity (Cattell: multivariate world)
Lessons from PS Debate

Kenrick & Funder




Gray > black or white (closer to reality)
Limitations on behavioral prediction from
personality and situation
Boundary conditions on personality ratings
Personality & Social Psych MUST work
together
Knowns




Person & situation important
Consistency varies across people
Situations vary in their power
Consistency varies as a function of both
Unknowns

What person & situation Vs best?


Goals
Situational taxonomy
Future: Integration?


Social-cognitive approach of Mischel
Trait approach of Costa & McCrae

Function & structure?