Proposal of a Nonlinear Interaction of Person and Situation (NIPS) model

Abstract

Marshall and Brown (2006) proposed a Traits as Situational Sensitivities (TASS) Model, which implies a systematic person × situation interaction. We review this model and show that it suffers from several limitations. We extend and modify the model in order to obtain a symmetric pattern of levels and effects for both person and situation factors. Our suggestions result in a general Nonlinear Interaction of Person and Situation (NIPS) Model. The NIPS model bears striking similarities to the Rasch model. Based on the symmetric nature of the NIPS model, we generalize the concept of weak and strong situations to individuals and propose the concepts of weak and strong persons. Finally, we discuss psychological mechanisms that might explain the NIPS pattern and offer ideas for future research.

Does achievement motivation mediate the semantic achievement priming effect?

“…Even long-term changes in personality measures due to major changes in life (e.g., Neyer & Lehnart, 2007) may be partly explained by a facilitated retrieval process of recent experiences instead of com pletely representing a personality change. Varying situations would provide an estimate of how important the state component of the measure is and whether subjects on all levels of traits respond in the same or in different ways to situational changes (Schmitt et al, 2013). Taken this way, the sensitivity of measures to context factors could be used to validate the measure (Borsboom, Mellenbergh, & van Heerden, 2004).…”

Processes of Personality Development in Adulthood: The TESSERA Framework

“…The TESSERA framework postulates that triggering situations and their perceived psychological meaning (including novelty) are necessary but not sufficient parts of personality change, which will not occur without trait-relevant states (see Figure 2). Situations can trigger expectancies of how to behave, feel, or think in that situation (D. Wood & Denissen, 2015); alternatively, situations can trigger states directly (e.g., if-then contingencies; Mischel & Shoda, 1995, 1998Rauthmann et al, 2014;Schmitt et al, 2013; Figure 1). …”

Individual differences make a difference: On the use and the psychometric properties of difference scores in social psychology

“…For some participants, anger scores did not change much; for others, anger increased dramatically: individual differences in anger at T2 were about two times higher than at T1 ( a = 2.05). Such interindividual differences in changes are likely to reflect interindividual differences in anger proneness or sensitivity to unfairness (Gollwitzer & Rothmund, ; Marshall & Brown, ; Schmitt, Neumann, & Montada, ; Schmitt et al, ). In our exemplary study, increases in anger were positively related to participants' habitual vengefulness ( r = .26, p = .02): The higher participants scored on a measure indicating positive attitudes toward revenge (Stuckless & Goranson, ), the more their anger increased because of being treated unfairly.…”

“…Consider the effect of a very harsh provocation (e.g., a demeaning statement by the experimenter) on participants' anger reactions: if the provocation is sufficiently strong, most people would probably experience anger, irrespective of their level of vengefulness or anger proneness (Marshall & Brown, 2006). Taken together, the strength of a situational manipulation is one of the main factors that influence to what extent difference scores sometimes become more and sometimes become less dispersed because of a treatment (Schmitt et al, 2013). 3 Importantly, the extent to which SDs differ between T1 and T2 influences the reliability of difference sores.…”