What predicts behavior? The Person-Situation Debate INTERNAL FORCES ! (the

 www.phwiki.com

 

The Above Picture is Related Image of Another Journal

 

What predicts behavior? The Person-Situation Debate INTERNAL FORCES ! (the

California State University, Hayward, US has reference to this Academic Journal, What predicts behavior? The Person-Situation Debate INTERNAL FORCES ! (the person) CONTEXTUAL FORCES ! (the situation) SITUATIONIST CRITIQUE OF PERSONALITY: (other names: Person-Situation Controversy; Consistency Paradox) A controversial in addition to painful debate that almost killed the field of personality but at the end helped so that redefine in addition to improve the concept of trait (the later, thanks so that people like Bem, Funder, Buss, Winter, Cantor, Emmons, among others). Political roots of this debate? Long-standing disagreements between clinical psychologists (Freudian, interested in intra-psychic structures the internal!) in addition to experimental psychologists (Radical behaviorism, interested in social, cultural forces what can be observed!) SITUATIONIST CRITIQUE OF PERSONALITY: How did all started? Mischel?s (1968) did an extensive review of personality studies (use of self-reports in addition to projective tests so that predict single behaviors) in addition to found that most correlations among related measures of personality traits (e.g., honesty in addition to conscientiousness scales) in addition to between personality traits in addition to related behaviors (e.g., honesty scale in addition to cheating behavior) were only .20-.30 (less 10% variance). MISCHEL?S CONCLUSION > is the concept of trait important or useful at all?

 Gehlke, Roni California State University, Hayward www.phwiki.com

 

Related University That Contributed for this Journal are Acknowledged in the above Image

 

SITUATIONIST CRITIQUE OF PERSONALITY: therefore ?. Personality traits don?t influence behavior much (we overestimate people?s behavioral consistency > personality = cognitive illusion). At any time, people?s behavior is mainly powered by situational forces such as roles, peer pressure, ?cues? (priming of certain cognitions in addition to motives), media influence, etc . PERSONALITY PSYCHOLOGY?S RESPONSE TO THIS DEBATE? 10 years later ??. Epstein (1979), Funder in addition to Ozer’s (1983) > reanalysis of some of situationism’s best known studies -> predictive power of situations had about the same size as criticized “personality coefficients”! (.20-.30) PROPOSED SOLUTIONS TO CONTROVERSY (and lessons learned from it) 1. INTERACTIONISM Very often, a big chunck of behavioral variance (y) is predicted by the interaction between the situation (S) in addition to personality (P), that is: PxS BEHAVIOR (y) = P + S + PxS + error ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE (ANOVA) MODEL

Example of a significant interaction effect between personality in addition to the situation Job type (S) Creative vs. Uncreative behavior News-paper Clerical BEHAVIOR (y) = P + S + PxS + error Y = creative work performance P = openness so that experience (scores on this measure were used so that divide people in two groups: HIGH in addition to LOW Openness) S = clerical job vs. student newspaper job HIGH HIGH LOW LOW (Y) HIGH LOW Job type (S) Creative vs. Uncreative behavior News-paper Clerical HIGH HIGH LOW LOW (Y) HIGH LOW In this example, only the main effects (P & S separately) are significant (the interaction between them is not significant) BEHAVIOR (y) = P + S + PxS + error Y = creative work performance P = openness so that experience (scores on this measure were used so that divide people in two groups: HIGH in addition to LOW Openness) S = clerical job vs. student newspaper job

OCB Mode

PROPOSED SOLUTIONS TO CONTROVERSY (and lessons learned from it) 2. ROLE OF MODERATOR-VARIABLES Individual differences in people?s need in consideration of consistency (how much importance you give so that show consistency on your behavior, values, goals, etc) in addition to self-monitoring (attention so that situational cues) moderate predictive power of personality in addition to the situation. PROPOSED SOLUTIONS TO CONTROVERSY (and lessons learned from it) 3. AGGREGATION Correlations between conceptually-related traits or between traits in addition to their related behaviors increase dramatically when these measures are aggregated (ie. averaged) across different situations, times, types of questionnaires, etc.)

Gehlke, Roni Host

Gehlke, Roni is from United States and they belong to Host and work for Reflexiones-KUAT-TV in the AZ state United States got related to this Particular Article.

Journal Ratings by California State University, Hayward

This Particular Journal got reviewed and rated by and short form of this particular Institution is US and gave this Journal an Excellent Rating.