The predictive power of people’s intraindividual variability across situations: Implementing whole trait theory in assessment.

Abstract

In the last decade, there has been increased recognition that traits refer not only to between-person differences but also to meaningful within-person variability across situations (i.e., whole trait theory). So far, this broader more contemporary trait conceptualization has made few inroads into assessment practices. Therefore, this study focuses on the assessment and predictive power of people's intraindividual variability across situations. In three studies (either in student or employee samples), both test-takers' mean trait scores and the variability of their responses across multiple written job-related situations of a situational judgment test (SJT) were assessed. Results revealed that people's intraindividual variability (a) was related to their self-rated functional flexibility, (b) predicted performance above their mean scores, and (c) predicted their actual personality state variability over 10 days. These results open opportunities for complementing traditional selection procedures with more dynamic indices in assessment. (PsycINFO Database Record

Is it all in the eye of the beholder? The importance of situation construal for situational judgment test performance

“…They found that situational variance greatly exceeded variance due to individual differences (i.e., trait variance). Similarly, Lievens et al (2018) made a strong case for the importance of within-person variability in responses across SJT items as a predictor of behavior. They demonstrated that the extent to which test-takers provide inconsistent answers across SJT items can serve as a predictor of performance criteria over and above between-person differences (i.e., SJT scores).…”

A Latent State‐Trait analysis of global self‐esteem: A reconsideration of its state‐like component in an organizational setting

“…Indeed, we suggested a shift of paradigm, wherein each construct may be composed by both trait and state variance, instead of believing there is a clear distinction between only‐traitconstructs and only‐state constructs. Finally, whereas most of within‐person studies are characterized by short time‐lags (e.g., hours or days) and a large number of measurement occasions (e.g., Dalal et al., 2015; Lievens et al., 2018; McCormick et al., 2020; Podsakoff et al., 2019), we have no doubt that Latent State‐Trait models (Cole, 2012; Geiser, 20211; Steyer et al., 2012, 2015; Tisak & Tisak, 2000) may aid researchers in investigating state‐trait issues over wider time‐lags (i.e., 1 year) and fewer measurement occasions (e.g., T = 2), that are typical of organizational studies.…”

“…Under this perspective, stating that a worker is high on a trait reduces to asserting that he or she often reports or shows low/high trait‐relevant states (Fleeson & Jayawickreme, 2015). Importantly, several studies have shown that trait and state components of personality characteristics may have different predictive value with respect to specific behaviors, with states often outperforming traits (Debusscher, Hofmans, & De Fruyt, 2016a, 2016b; Lievens et al., 2018; Minbashian et al., 2010).…”

Comedians’ Trait Level and Stage Personalities: Evidence for Goal-Directed Personality Adaptation

“…The findings also support our contention that variability in personality may be either functional or dysfunctional depending on whether the change in personality is in a direction consistent or inconsistent with situational requirements. This suggests a possible resolution of the apparent paradox that personality variability may be dysfunctional (Clifton & Kuper, 2011;Cote et al, 2012;Fournier et al, 2009;Russell, et al, 2007;Zielger-Hill, et al, 2013), or functional (Lievens, et al, 2018;Minbashian et al, 2010). In short, measures of match will reflect functional variation whilst measures of mismatch will index dysfunctional variation in personality.…”