The person and the situation in an international model of behavior

Abstract

Abstract.— The report deals with two main problems: (a) cross‐situational consistency of person variables, which is discussed on the basis of a critical analysis of empirical research on cross‐situational stability of actual behavior, and (b) the role of the momentary situation in models of behavior, and the consequences of an interactional view for theorizing and research on situations. The analyses and discussions are based on two distinctions, namely (a) a distinction between consistency in terms of actual behavior and consistency in terms of mediating processes, and (b) a distinction between personality theories and measurement models. Three different senses of consistency in terms of reactions are distinguished.

Resilience through the lens of interactionism: A systematic review.

“…Proponents of interactionism argue that this is why traditional trait approaches to psychological assessment are limited (Endler, 1983;Magnusson, 1976;Mischel, 1977). Interactionists aim to understand and evaluate the way individuals interact with their environments, and it could therefore be argued that this approach to the assessment of resilience may provide a suitable theoretical framework with which to guide the operationalization of resilience.…”

Personality and social psychology: towards a synthesis

“…Instead, the emphasis is on discovering lawfulness in individual behaviour, which implies a different, namely intra-individual, level of analysis. At this level, the major task is to identify coherent, that is, idiographically predictable, patterns of individual behaviour across situations and over time (see Chapter 2 and also Magnusson, 1976).…”

“…One basic distinction here is that between reaction variables and mediating variables (Magnusson, 1976).…”

“…In contrasting their approach with other models of personality, advocates of interactionism draw particular attention to the distinction between personality theories and measurement models (see, for example, Magnusson, 1976). A personality theory consists of a set of psychological hypotheses about the role of personal dispositions, needs, motives, etc.…”

“…The major difference between the two strategies is that the search for consistency has been directed at discovering stable individual differences in behaviour due to some underlying trait, an endeavour that has produced at best mixed results (see Chapter 2). In contrast, the search for coherence aims to reveal lawful, idiographically predictable patterns of behaviour (Magnusson, 1976). This means, as Mischel (1983) has pointed out, that one needs to explain both the stability and discriminativeness in individual behaviour, a task that has two important requirements.…”