A unified framework for the study of behavioral consistency: bridging person×situation interaction and the consistency paradox

Abstract

During the past three decades the debates on cross-situational consistency and the analysis of person  situation interaction have developed largely in parallel, employing two distinct research paradigms. The fundamental theoretical questions addressed by both remain ultimately the same, but the dierences in the paradigms they have employed prevented ®ndings from one from bearing on the other. The goal of this article is to provide a unifying framework that bridges these two paradigms and helps resolve thè consistency paradox' by combining the advantages of both. Speci®cally, the framework clari®es the relationships between variance components and aspects of behavioral consistency such as cross-situational consistency, temporal stability, the stability of behavioral signatures, and the utility of forming various types of aggregate predictor. It also places competing accounts of low cross-situational consistency within a unifying framework, and shows that they are not contradictory but complementary facets of the general relationship between the organization of behavior and cross-situational consistency. These formal relationships and predictions are illustrated using the Carleton College data of Mischel and Peake (1982).

Individual behavioral phenotypes: An integrative meta‐theoretical framework. Why “behavioral syndromes” are not analogs of “personality”

“…The various behaviors indicating arousal are not displayed by all individuals. If data collection is restricted to only a few behavioral measures, those individuals who primarily show other behaviors representing the same general construct will be misclassified, with the effect that all analyses based on these measures will be compromised (Asendorpf, 1988;Lacey, 1950;Shoda, 1999;.…”

The psychology of linking crimes: A review of the evidence

“…Similar situations will, it is argued, elicit similar cognitions, affect and behaviour (Mischel, 1999). Thus, what makes two situations similar to the individual concerned is not their physical characteristics but their psychological meaning (Shoda, 1999). Situations that have been rated as more similar have been shown to elicit consistent behaviour by research within the personality psychology tradition (Funder & Colvin, 1991; Furr & Funder, 2003; Shoda, Mischel, & Wright, 1993; Wright & Mischel, 1987).…”

Regulators as agents: Modelling personality and power as evidence is brokered to support decisions on environmental risk

“…'Behavioural signatures' can be allocated to individual agents (Epstein, 2006;North and Macal, 2007) offering a social richness and behavioural realism (Mischel, 1999;Mischel and Shoda,, 1995;Shoda, 1999;2002) difficult to capture in conventional decision analytics. Our two-agent model is rudimentary, but suggests how transactions between parties might influence a recipient's receptivity towards the evidence that subsequently informs a decision on risk.…”

“…This would allow us to fully map the decision processes that have been validated by the experts and create 'behavioural signatures' to distinguish between agents in different positions within each decision hierarchy (see Mischel, 1999;Mischel and Shoda, 1995;Shoda, 1999;Shoda et al, 2002). Moreover, we have not fully explored the use of dependency in TESLA™.…”