Intraindividual stability in the organization and patterning of behavior: Incorporating psychological situations into the idiographic analysis of personality.

Shoda, Yuichi; Mischel, Walter; Wright, Jack C.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.674

Cited by 448 publications

(450 citation statements)

References 45 publications

(105 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

425

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The model results in a parsimonious representation that allows one to grasp the complex interplay between persons, situations, and behaviors. As such, it may be a useful tool to describe individual differences in situation-behavior profiles as advocated by authors such as Golding (1975), Olweus (1976), Shoda et al (1993Shoda et al ( , 1994, and Wright and Mischel (1987).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hostility was chosen, consistent with earlier contextualized studies of this domain (Endler & Hunt, 1968;Mischel, 1993;Rosenzweig, 1976;Shoda et al, 1994;Wright & Mischel, 1987). The present study is mainly exploratory in nature, and its aim is to test the utility of the triple typology model and the associated data analysis.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, Situation A, in which a person learns that his or her important book has been lost by someone else, and Situation B, in which a person learns that someone else has opened his or her personal mail, may belong to the same situation class; from Person X both situations may elicit sarcastic remarks, whereas from Person Y, both situations may elicit feelings of tension but no verbal aggressive behavior. Hence, situations that belong to the same situation class may be considered functionally equivalent (Shoda et al, 1994), and this functional equivalence holds for all persons. On top of that, it is possible that for certain (but not all) persons, situations that belong to different situation classes are also functionally equivalent.…”

Section: Person Classes Situation Classes and Behavior Classesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Why do different persons (situations, behaviors) belong to the same person (situation, behavior) class (Bem, 1983;Funder & Colvin, 1991;Golding, 1975;Mischel & Peake, 1982;Olweus, 1976;Shoda et al, 1994)? What is the substantive basis of the hierarchical relations and of the if-then rules of the model?…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To conceptualize the context or situation, Shoda et al (1994) made a distinction between nominal situations and situations characterized in terms of active psychological features. Nominal situations are defined by the setting in which they occur.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Individual differences in situation–behavior profiles: A triple typology model.

Vansteelandt¹,

Mechelen²

1998

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A model is proposed to represent individual differences in situation-behavior profiles. The model consists of 3 components: (a) q'ypologies of person, situation, and behavior classes; (b) hierarchical relations between the classes of each typology; and (c) a characterization of the person types in terms of different sets of if (situation class) then (behavior class) rules by which the 3 typologies are linked to one another. A data analysis technique (INDCLAS) is available to induce a triple typology model from empirical data. To reveal the psychological mechanisms behind such a model, the classes of the model can be related to situation, behavior, and person features. As a result, person types can be interpreted in terms of systems of cognitive-affective variables that mediate between active situation features and behavioral manifestations. This is illustrated with a study on selfreported hostile behavior in frustrating situations.According to Bem( 1983 ), the fundamental scientific task for personality research is to convert observations of particular persons behaving in particular ways in particular situations into assertions that certain kinds of persons will behave in certain kinds of ways in certain kinds of situations, that is, to construct triple typologies or equivalence classes--of persons, of behaviors, and of situations--and to fashion theories of personality that relate these equivalence classes to one another. (p. 566) Several authors other than Bern have underscored the importance of studying personality in terms of meaningful patterns of stability and change in well-defined groups of behaviors in relation to well-defined groups of situations (Allport, 1937;Claeys, Timmers, & Phalet, 1993;Golding, 1975;Mischel & Shoda, 1995;Olweus, 1976;Pervin, 1976;Shoda, Mischel, & Wright, 1993Wright & Mischel, 1987). In particular, Wright and Mischel, building on earlier work of Alston (1975), proposed a conditional approach to the study of personality, in which the fundamental unit of observation is not the unconditional probability of behavior but rather the conditional probability of a certain type of behavior given types of situations or psychological conditions. Within this context, differences between (classes of) persons may be conceived as differences in if (situation class) then (behavior class) rules. Wright and Mischel further assumed that the situation category as well as the behavior Kristof Vansteelandt and Iven Van Mechelen, Department of Psychology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.The research reported in this article was supported by North Atlantic Treaty Organization Grant CRG921321. We thank Seymour Rosenberg for his helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kristof Vansteelandt, Department of Psychology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Tiensestraat 102, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium. Electronic mail may be sent to kristof.vansteelandt @psy.kuleuven.ac.be. category are prototype-based categories with vague boun...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Person Classes Situation Classes and Behavior Classesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Individual differences in situation–behavior profiles: A triple typology model.

Vansteelandt¹,

Mechelen²

1998

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

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

Shoda

1999

Eur. J. Pers.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the past three decades the debates on cross-situational consistency and the analysis of person Â 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).

show abstract

A formal model for the competency-demand hypothesis

Vansteelandt¹

1999

Eur. J. Pers.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of contextualized approaches to personality is twofold: (a) to describe individual dierences in situation±response pro®les in a parsimonious way and (b) to grasp the psychological mechanisms at the basis of these individual dierences. In this paper, it is argued that formal models can be useful to reach this goal. In particular, an item response theory (IRT) model is proposed that formalizes the competency±demand hypothesis, a possible psychological mechanism at the basis of failure behaviour (Wright and Mischel, 1987). The latter hypothesis implies that a person will display a failure response (e.g. aggression) in a situation whenever the demands of the situation are larger than the competency of the person to such an extent that the threshold of the failure response is exceeded. In an empirical study on self-reported hostility in frustrating situations, it is illustrated how the proposed model can be estimated and tested.Throughout development, each person acquires, directly, via personal experience, or, indirectly, via modelling, a large amount of knowledge and information on himself and the world: how should I interact with other persons?; how should I perform certain tasks? Competencies refer to this large amount of well organized information and the ability to use this information in an active way to generate well adjusted cognitions and behaviours in diverse situations ; competencies involve information on knowing what to do and how to do it (Paulhus and Martin, 1987;Riemann and Abels, 1994). Many types of competencies, including motor, cognitive, self-regulatory, interpersonal and problem solving competencies can be considered (Paulhus and Martin, 1987;Wright and Mischel, 1987); moreover, within several competencies, dierent components may be distinguished (Buhrmester, Wittenberg, Reis and Furman, 1988;McFall, 1982). An important property of competencies is that they are de®ned in relation to speci®c stimulus conditions or task demands 430 K. Vansteelandt

show abstract

Intraindividual stability in the organization and patterning of behavior: Incorporating psychological situations into the idiographic analysis of personality.

Cited by 448 publications

References 45 publications

Individual differences in situation–behavior profiles: A triple typology model.

Individual differences in situation–behavior profiles: A triple typology model.

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

A formal model for the competency-demand hypothesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About