Personality And Social Psychology Lecture 6: Persons And Situations PDF

Personality and Social Psychology Lecture 6: Persons and Situations Overview of my lectures The last two weeks… Personality and consequential outcomes (last week) The predictive power of personality Achievement, health, quality of life, social indicators Persons and situation...

Personality and Social Psychology Lecture 6: Persons and Situations Overview of my lectures The last two weeks… Personality and consequential outcomes (last week) The predictive power of personality Achievement, health, quality of life, social indicators Persons and situations (today) The ‘person-situation debate’ How important is the role of personality compared to the context/situation? Persons and Situations When explaining behaviour… Personality psychology tends to focus on the person Social psychology tends to focus on the situation …Both seem relevant? e.g., the ‘stressful experience’ [week 2] Persons and Situations Kurt Lewin’s (1936) ‘field theory’ Behaviour is a function of: 1. The person (e.g., needs, belief, values, abilities, i.e., personality), and 2. The environment, especially the social environment or situation (i.e., the ‘psychological field’) — no behaviour happens in a vacuum Persons and Situations Post World War II… a growing appreciation of the powerful situational drivers of behaviour e.g., studies of Social Influence: Asch’s (1951) conformity studies… Milgram’s (1963) obedience studies… Stanford Prison Experiment Can bad situations bring out our ‘dark’ side? 24 college students randomly assigned to be guards or prisoners for a 2-week study of ‘prison life’ Hyper-realistic role play: ‘Guards’ given uniforms ‘Prisoners’ ‘arrested’ at home and ‘charged’ with armed robbery Jail set up in the basement of the Stanford Psychology Department Zimbardo (1971) Stanford Prison Experiment Results: Chaos… Guards became sadistic, prisoners revolted … Study was aborted on day 6…. The study demonstrated “the power of a bad situation to overwhelm the personalities and good upbringing of even the best and brightest among us” - Zimbardo et al. (2017) The Rise of Situationism “Personality and Assessment” by Walter Mischel (1968) Two key claims: 1. Measures of personality are “weak” predictors of behaviour (r <.30) 2. Behaviour varies considerably over situations Conclusion: Behaviour is largely driven by situations; the concept of a stable personality trait is “untenable” The Rise of Situationism Inspiration from a study of honesty in children… Hartshorne & May (1928): ~11,000 school children (aged 10-12) Administered various games / tests with possibility to cheat Also, a self-report measure of lying Correlations: Self-reported lying and instances of cheating (r ~.20) Among pairs of instances of cheating (r ~.20) The Rise of Situationism Growth of situation-centric theorising… e.g., “The Fundamental Attribution Error” (Ross, 1977) (aka “correspondance bias”; Gilbert & Malone, 1995) Claim: People mistakenly explain behaviour in terms of dispositional factors (rather than situational factors) e.g., impressions of the Milgram obedience study: Participants “assumed that the particular subject’s obedience reflected his distinguishing personal dispositions  The Impact of Situationism Personality psychology declines… “Many personality psychologists began to doubt the credibility of the entire enterprise of studying persons” (McAdams, 1997) Even today, “tensions still run high” (Lucas & Donellan, 2009) However… Personality psychologists “sought to settle the debate on primarily empirical grounds, much in the spirit of Mischel's original critique”... (McAdams, 1997) Situationism evaluated Claim #1: “Personality is a weak predictor of behaviour (r <.30).” Yes… Indeed, traits rarely predict behaviour beyond r =.30 [week 5] But… Does this mean situations are stronger predictors? First need to translate a mean difference into a correlation… Effects of situations turned out to be no stronger than that of traits (e.g., Funder & Ozer, 1983) Situationism evaluated What is a ‘weak’ or ‘strong’ correlation? Is a correlation of.30 ‘weak’? How should we interpret any ‘effect size’? Guidelines tend to be arbitrary, e.g., Cohen, 1988: Small: r =.10 Medium: r =.30 Large: r =.50 Richard et al. (2003): Effect sizes from 25,000 studies in personality and social psychology… Average correlation: r =.20  Situationism evaluated Richard et al. (2003): Meta-synthesis of personality/social psychology Average effect sizes across 25,000 studies of 8 million people Richard et al. 2003  Situationism evaluated Claim #2: “Behaviour varies considerably over situations.” Well, of course it does… “One does not have sexual intercourse in the church during church services. It is unusual to find anyone reading a book during a movie. People at football games do not usually sleep” —Widiger, 1982 Personality psychology does not require/assume that behavior is inflexible across situations… Behaviour varies across situations Allport (1937, 1961): “...traits do not apply to all sorts of Gordon Allport situations…” “An unscrupulous businessman may be the very essence in honesty in his relations with his friends, his club, his church.” “A polite American while traveling will quickly learn to belch in satisfaction over his meal in some countries; in others, to avoid this hearty act.”  Behaviour varies across situations A “straw person” argument... Cross-situational variability of behaviour is compatible with effects of traits on behaviour: 1  “Additive on itua ti effects” S n2 Behaviou ti o itua S i on3 Behaviour is both t ua S it predicted by the r trait and varies across the situation Personality Trait  Consistency vs. reliability… But, surely some consistency is required to infer a trait? Remember: test-retest reliability? [week 2] How to distinguish poor reliability from low consistency? Mischel’s review focused on studies assessing single instances of behaviour (e.g., Hartshorne & May, 1928) But single instance measures are vulnerable to measurement error… Observed Score =  The Principle of Aggregation Rushton et al. (1983): Aggregation across multiple measurement occasions reduces measurement error, increasing reliability NB: This is why any (good) psychological scale has multiple items Aggregation Increases ratio of true score to error ingle instances of behaviour: variance e.g., cheating) rue score (reliable variance, e.g., honesty) Error (random, occasion-specific noise) Epstein (1979): Cross-situational consistency of behavior as a function of aggregation … Daily single instance measures… For single instance pairs, low ds consistency… But consistency increases as multiple occasions are aggregated. Epstein, 1979 Epstein (1979): Cross-situational consistency of behavior as a function of aggregation … Daily informant reports of discrete behaviours… Pairs of students living on campus rated each ds other’s behaviour over 2 weeks e.g., "She actively sought out the company of others." For 7/8 behaviours consistency increases Epstein, 1979  The Principle of Aggregation Rushton et al. (1983): “The principle of aggregation states that the sum of a set of multiple measurements is a more stable and representative estimator than any single measurement. This greater representation occurs because there is inevitably some error associated with measurement. By combining numerous exemplars, such errors of measurement are averaged out, leaving a clearer view of underlying relationships.” Provided a demonstration across 12 types of association including… 1. “the personality-behaviour relationship” [Mischel claim #1] 2. “the cross-situational consistency of moral character and personality” [Mischel clam #2] Consistency of behaviour… Borkenau et al. (2004) “Thin slices” paradigm – glimpses of behaviour across various controlled situations N = 600 Self- and peer-reports of B5 personality traits 15 x videotaped behaviour in different (controlled) situations, e.g., Telling a joke to a confederate (1m 50s) Setting up a model tower (5m 25s) Persuading an “obstinate neighbor” (a confederate) to turn down their music after 11 p.m. (2m 25s) etc… 120 judges rated behaviour based on the video footage  Consistency of behaviour… Results: Stability of cross- situational behaviour increased as a function of aggregation Replicates Epstein (1979) Relations that self and other-rated personality have with behaviour increased as a function of aggregation  Borkenau et al. 2004 Consistency of behaviour… Experience sampling methods (ESM)… Techniques for assessing behaviours/experiences multiple times per day for several days or weeks Fleeson (2001): 46 students given a mobile device Sent survey ‘alerts’ 5x per day for 13 days Described their personality state expressions (e.g., extraverted behavour) over the last hour 4 items per big five trait (e.g., during the past hour I was talkative)  Consistency of behaviour… Individuals vary over time and space …but also are highly in their personality state expressions… stable: Average personality states in week 1 predicted average personality states in week 2: Fleeson, 2001  Consistency of behaviour… And… Average levels of personality states are well predicted by personality trait questionnaires (Replicates Borkenau et al., 2004) e.g., meta-analysis of 15 studies: Extraversion -> state E: r =.42 Neuroticism -> state N: r =.53 Openness/Intellect -> state O/I: r =.42 Agreeableness -> state A: r =.54 Conscientiousness -> state C: r =.48 Fleeson & Gallagher,  Consistency and flexibility: Summary by Sherman et al. (2015): 1. We behave differently from one situation to the next: “a single state expression by a given individual in a specific situation is substantially dependent on the characteristics of his or her situation” 2. Across many situations, cross-situational consistency in behaviour can be assessed more reliably—and relates to our personality: “personality traits are useful for predicting state expressions (i.e., cognitions, emotions, and behaviors) across many situations” Consistency over time Consistency over time (vs over situations) is even more relevant to the concept of a trait (Roberts, 2009) Rank-order stability (test-retest reliability) of personality: moderate-high, even over decades [week 4] Predictive validity in longitudinal studies… e.g., delay of gratification studies [week 4] (Mischel, 1972, 2011) Situationism debunked… RE Mischel’s claims: Trait-behaviour correlates not ‘weak’, but comparable to effects of situations … Consistency across situations is more robust once reliable measures are used (i.e., the principle of aggregation)... Personality shows rank-order stable over time [week 4] RE other situationist perspectives... Meta-analysis of 173 studies disconfirms the “Fundamental Attribution Error” (Malle, 2006) Stanford Prison Experiment found to have “questionable scientific validity” (e.g., “guards received precise instructions regarding the treatment of the prisoners”; Le Texier, 2019) Factor analysis of data from Hartshorne & May (1928) Remembering the debate: “a great deal of nonsense” (Rorer & Widiger, 1983) “much ado about nothing” (Hogan, 2009) “personality psychology returned to its senses” (McAdams, 2023)  From situationism to “interactionism” Situationists revised their position from ‘situationism’ to ‘interactionism’ – traits and situations influence behaviour in combination Lewin, 1936  From situationism to “interactionism” e.g., Mischel’s “situational strength” hypothesis: Both traits and situations influence behaviour, but “strong situations” cancel out the effects of traits: “To the degree that people are exposed to powerful treatments, What is a the role of the individual differences among “strong” them are minimized” (Mischel, 1977, p. 347) situation ? 1.Clear behavioural expectations 2.Incentives for compliance (or threats for non-compliance) 3.Individual ability to meet the demands of the situation Situational Strength… e.g., Milgram’s Obedience studies… Milgram (1962) state that he wanted “to study behavior in a strong situation of deep consequence for the participants.”  Situational Strength… Did this situation cancel out effects of personality? Milgram assessed personality in just one of his ~20 studies… and found that traits did predict obedience: Authoritarianism: tendency to value authority more than individual freedom higher obedience Locus of control: the degree to which you see your life as self-determined (internal LOC) or influenced by external forces such as powerful others or ‘fate’ (external LOC) A more external locus of control predicted higher levels of obedience Blass, 1991  Situational Strength… Recent conceptual replication of Milgram study… Television game show scenario Authority figure = host Teacher/Learner = contestants Larger shocks predicted by Conscientiousness, r =.34 Agreeableness, r =.26 So, maybe ‘strong situations’ don’t always cancel out effects of personality? Begue et al. 2014  Situational Strength… Adequately testing situational strength… Cooper and Withey, 2009: Virtually no studies directly assess effects of situations as a function of the situational strength dimensions specified by Mischel, i.e., 1. Behavioural expectations 2. Incentives for compliance 3. Ability to meet the demands “The situation strength hypothesis has been transformed from hypothesis to dogma… based more on the plausibility of the hypothesis and sheer repetition than on any empirical evidence.” Other perspectives on interactionism… Might situations activate (rather than suppress) effects of personality? e.g., From week 2: “Personality traits are probabilistic descriptions of regularities in behaviour and experience arising in response to broad classes of stimuli and situations” (DeYoung, 2015) Trait Activation Theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003): Underlying traits are activated in ‘trait-relevant’ situations Thus, a “strong” situation might strengthen trait-behaviour associations Situational Affordances (Reis, 2008; Thiemann et al., 2020): Different situations ‘afford’ different traits  Other perspectives on interactionism… Recent meta-analysis of personality and job performance: Some support for ‘situational strength’: B5 traits predicted job performance more strongly in ‘weak’ job situations, e.g., When work was unstructured, when employees had autonomy, etc But... also support for ‘trait activation / affordances’: In some ‘strong’ situations (incentives and expectations), traits were stronger predictors of job performance Extraversion when social skills demands were high Openness when creativity/innovation demands were high Judge & Zapata, 201  Person-Situation Transactions Other ways the person and the situation combine: 1. Contextualized descriptions of personality: e.g., Characteristic Adaptations (DeYoung, 2015; McAdams, 1995) [week 2] 2. Situation selection: Personality traits can predict entering a consequential situation e.g., openness and study abroad [week 4] (Zimmerman 2013) 3. Situation evocation/transformation: Personality traits can shape the dynamics of a situation e.g., effects of traits on social/relationship dynamics [week 5] (Solomon & Jackson, 2014; Eaton & Funder, 2003) Furr & Funder, 2021  Person-Situation Transactions Other ways the person and the situation combine: 4. Effects of situations on individual personality change: The role of unique experiences e.g., more/less positive experiences of transition to work [week 4] 5. Situation perception: Where traits shape appraisals of a situation, and thus an individual’s experience of that situation, e.g., Sherman et al. (2017): agreeableness  opportunities to cooperate openness/intellect  intellectually engaging Furr & Funder, 2021 Situation Perception—The “DIAMONDS” model Rauthmann et al (2014)… Comprehensive taxonomy for describing the structure of perceived situations Like a “Big Five” for how people experience situations: Duty pOitivity - A job needs to be done - Situation is potentially Intelect enjoyable - Negativity Situation includes intellectual or cognitive - Situation is potentially stimuli anxiety-inducing Adversity Deception - Someone is being criticized - It is possible to deceive Mating someone - Sociality Situation includes stimuli - Situation Perception Jonason & Rauthman (2020): Participants (N = 237) presented with identical pictures of three scenarios: Bar / Classroom / Office B5 traits predicted perception of all situations (DIAMONDS): e.g., Extraversion  Positivity, Social e.g., Neuroticism  Negativity, adversity, deception Sherman et al. (2015): Compared effects of traits and perceived situations on daily-life behaviours (N = 210, 1 week ESM) Similar effects for personality traits and perceived situations (DIAMONDS) Stronger effects for individual perceptions of situations vs how the situation was perceived on average…  Situation Selection Teasing apart effects of situations (on trait expression) vs effects of traits (on situation selection): 3x two-week experience sampling studies (Total N = 2,350) Assessed B5 traits prior to each study, and personality states 4x per day Assessed situations—places visited, 4x per day Participants chose from 12 places to describe their current situation, e.g., bar/party café/restaurant home 1. Do the places people visit predict behaviour (personality states)? 2. Do personality traits predict the places people visit? (selection effect) Matz, & Harari, 2020 Situation Selection Places visited  personality states Matz, & Harari, 2020 Situation Selection Personality  places visited: Matz, & Harari, 2020 Situation Selection After controlling for traits, places visited rarely/modestly predicted personality states: Matz, & Harari, 2020 Situation Selection Carnahan & McFarland (2007): Recruited participants across six US universities using a near-identical advertisement to the Stanford Prison Experiment: “Male college students needed for a psychological study of prison life. $70 per day for 1-2 weeks beginning May 17th.” A control group was recruited using the same advertisement without the words “of prison life” Results: Participants Aggression (higher) Narcissism in the ‘prison Empathy (higher)vs control life’ group group(lower) differed on multiple personality Authoritarianism traits: Social Dominance Altruism (lower) (higher) (higher) Machiavellianism (higher)  Summary The person-situation debate has come full circle… B = f(P,E) (Lewin, 1936) Situationism (Mischel, 1968) Interactionism (1970s onward) Person-situation transactions (Today) “What people do depends both on who they are—their dispositions such as personality traits—and the situation they are in. The obviousness of this statement only highlights how odd it is that psychologists manage to find ways of disagreeing with each other over its implications.” - Furr & Funder, 2021 …. Readings for this week On LMS: Fleeson & Noftle (2009) In Haslam & Smillie (2022): Chapter 2