Individual differences in contingencies between situation characteristics and personality states.

Abstract

Contingencies between situational variables and psychological states have been proposed as key individual difference variables by many theoretical approaches to personality. Despite their relevance, the basic properties, nomological correlates, and factor structure of individual differences in contingencies have not been examined so far. We address these fundamental questions in five studies with overall N = 952 participants and N = 32,052 unique assessments. Individual differences in situation characteristic-state contingencies (SCSCs) between DIAMONDS situation characteristics and Big Five personality states were examined in everyday life. SCSCs showed substantial variation across participants, and individual differences in them were moderately reliable (average meta-analytic reliability = .47) and short-term stable (average meta-analytic latent stability = .43). They were weakly and inconsistently related to average personality states, self-reported personality traits, subjective happiness, and sociodemographic variables across studies. However, there were meaningful intercorrelations among SCSCs that could be described by four factors: contingencies involving (1) positive states and situational problems, (2) positive states and situational rewards, (3) thinking/work and requirements of thinking/work, and (4) neurotic states. Overall, our findings support the notion of SCSCs as potentially important individual difference variables, and we sketch future lines of research on contingencies.

Narcissistic status pursuit in everyday social life: A within-person process approach to the behavioral and emotional dynamics of narcissism.

“…More broadly, our findings are in line with theories that emphasize individual differences in situational contingencies as important aspects of personality (e.g., Denissen & Penke, 2008; Mischel & Shoda, 1995). Whereas much of the prior literature on contingencies found no significant associations with personality traits (Kuper et al, 2022; Sherman et al, 2015), we observed the expected associations between trait narcissism and emotional reactivities. One crucial difference is that we preregistered and examined contingencies derived from theoretical models, such as process models of narcissistic status pursuit (Grapsas et al, 2020) and three-factor models of narcissism (e.g., Krizan & Herlache, 2018; Miller et al, 2017; Wright & Edershile, 2018).…”

“…In addition, we showed that the individual differences in status contingencies were somewhat stable over time. The short-term stability correlations within waves (Study 1: .43/.39, Study 2: .49/.45) were comparable to those found in previous research (Kuper et al, 2022). Importantly, the stabilities were relatively large across longer timeframes (i.e., .57 [Study 1] and .51 [Study 2] for a time lag of 2 months between waves), supporting the conceptualization of contingencies as stable individual difference variables.…”

“…Specifically, the average reliability of status contingencies was .74 in Study 1 and .66 in Study 2. Whereas these reliability coefficients are lower than those for mean levels, they are relatively large compared with the ones found in previous studies (e.g., Kuper et al, 2022; Mota et al, 2023). Please note that the reliability of contingencies strongly depends on the number of assessments per person (Neubauer et al, 2020).…”

“…One crucial difference is that we preregistered and examined contingencies derived from theoretical models, such as process models of narcissistic status pursuit (Grapsas et al, 2020) and three-factor models of narcissism (e.g., Krizan & Herlache, 2018; Miller et al, 2017; Wright & Edershile, 2018). By considering these theoretical perspectives, we were able to measure individual differences in contingencies that were theoretically meaningful, which likely contributed to their better psychometric properties (e.g., reliability, stability; Kuper et al, 2022) and convergent validity with trait measures.…”

“…Building on these approaches, we conceptualize narcissism as between-person differences in within-person state networks (see Figure 5 from Back, 2021), which encompass mean levels of states (e.g., average behavioral and emotional states) as well as relationships between state components (i.e., how much variation in one state is linked to variation in another). This conceptualization means that individuals with high narcissism differ from others both in the frequency with which they experience specific narcissism-relevant states in their everyday lives (mean state levels) and the strengths of the relationships between these states (state contingencies; Kuper et al, 2022). The concept of state contingencies is central to many theories of personality (e.g., Denissen & Penke, 2008; Mischel & Shoda, 1995; including theoretical accounts of narcissism (e.g., self-regulatory models; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001).…”