Interactionism revisited: Reflections on the continuing crisis in the personality area

Abstract

The current status of the personality area is critically examined with the view that problems in the discipline voiced two decades ago are stillprevalent. Recurring problems in the personality area have important ramijications for much of contemporary theoretical and applied psychology. The interactional approach to personality came to the fore in the 1970s andearly 1980s as an explicit attempt to resolve a number ofperceived weaknesses in the personality area. While it has become common for researchers to publicly advocate an interactional position, in practice little interactional research has been conducted recently. The historical developments of the trait andsituationism models of personality research and relevant assessment issues are outlined. This history is of interest because it helps to illuminate why and how many current personality researchers continue to perpetuate problems in the personality area. The interactional model of personality is also examined. Finally, the development of an interactional model for the study of anxiety is examined as a specijic example of the theoretical, research, andpractical benejits of this approach.

When and Why People Engage in Different Forms of Proactive Behavior: Interactive Effects of Self-construals and Work Characteristics

“…The scholarly focus on core processes and antecedents has precluded a nuanced consideration of situational factors. Situations shape both the desirability and the capacity to perform particular behaviors (Endler & Parker, 1992;Tett & Guterman, 2000), so to fully understand the prompting of particular forms of proactive behavior, it is essential to take situational factors into account. Some studies have differentiated proactive behaviors on the basis of functions (e.g., improving work environment, person/environment fit, organizational/external environment fit) (Parker & Collins, 2010), levels of work roles (e.g., proactivity for individual, work unit, and organizational tasks) (Griffin et al, 2007), and intended targets (e.g., benefits for self, colleagues, and organizations) (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010), but unfortunately, we know little about when and why people engage in these distinct forms of proactivity.…”

Primary and Secondary Appraisals in Measuring Resilience to Stress

“…The fourth stage is comprised of stress outcomes, which can be identified at various levels of personal organization. Built in this way, transactional stress theories constitutes a subset of interactional personality theories (Endler, and Parker, 1992;Fleeson, 2004). Proponents of transactional stress theories are interested not only in generalized behavioral tendencies, but in actual processes of perception and response selection, which links particular stressors to particular outcomes (Lazarus, and Folkman, 1987).…”

Personalityzation: UI Personalization, Theoretical Grounding in HCI and Design Research

“…A fundamental factor that distinguishes individuals from one another is personality: the dispositions and interpersonal strategies that explain people's behavior and the unique and relatively stable patterns of behaviors that individuals exhibit (Zweig & Webster 2004). In line with the interactionist approach in psychology (Endler & Parker, 1992;Swann & Seyle, 2005) and its application in the field of informatics (Oreg & Nov, 2008), we propose that HCI design be adapted to users' personality, such that specific UI features are presented to users with a particular personality profile (and not to others). Given that personality traits are relatively stable, personalityzation could alleviate the concerns for diminished predictability, comprehensibility, and controllability that are associated with personalized UI design (Jameson, 2008) to potentially yield higher levels of flow, performance, user satisfaction, and engagement.…”