The Synthesis of Personality and Situation Debate - Coursework Example

The Synthesis of Personality and Situation Debate Name Course Tutor Date: Outline i.) Introduction ii.) The person-situation debate iii.) Justifying the end of the debate iv.) Conclusion v.) References Introduction In studying personality psychology, many controversies have come up in the past among them the person-situation debate. The debate has been questioning whether an individual’s personality or his situation is more powerful when determining the behaviour of the said individual. This paper seeks my personal views on whether the synthesis of this debate has been successful. The debate has centred on peoples’ memories, emotions and perceptions when they themselves in particular positions that are in most cases varied. The debate has been massive and it is easy to quote information from various scholars when making an analysis of this topic. Personality trait theories divulge more on this once controversial issue. Since the origin of the debate, situationists have held that individuals are never fully consistent in a broad range of situations therefore; do not need to be generally categorized as having a broad spectrum of personality traits. Trait psychologists on the other hand averred that the way people behave is guided by consistent personalities that they hold in different situations. Several scholars kicked of the debate in the first quarter of the twentieth century. The psychologists at that time were split into two with one group the idea of consistent personality traits and the situational effects on behaviour. However, there were those who supported the extreme positions but added that the other ideology played some role. Gordon Allport and Henry Murray are among the psychologists who held the views then that personality traits of individuals generally become predictable to the degree that people’s behaviour are predictable in particular situations (Allport 1937). Walter Mischel (1999) on the other hand was among the leading debaters on this controversial topic claiming that behaviour is extremely in various situations to make researchers classify it with traits. Edward Thorndike represented the psychologists who could have been as termed moderates (Fleeson 2001). In his views, an individual’s responses to situations constituted his or her behaviour. The person-situation debate An individual’s personality can be used to predict one’s behaviour. This has been the driving force behind the much-fancied debate on whether it is personality traits or situation that strongly influences behaviour. Personal traits are internal factors and they are weighed up against the external factors that are commonly called the situational factors (Geen 1984). Assessing the two factors that seem extreme together with carrying out an analysis of what the previous scholars of psychology have explored in this field leads to an understanding that the debate has concluded. It is justified that personality evolves as a person develops right from infancy through to adulthood. In addition, particular traits in individuals remain relatively stable in one’s entire life. Furthermore, people hold certain traits that develop, as an individual grows older (Hartshorne and May 1928). These statements can be relied upon to explain that individual traits influence the way people behave in a big way. An analysis of this eliminates the bias that would arise if the traits were considered above the situation a person is in leading to the fundamental attribution error. The scale that brings out clarity in the process of the debate also cuts the assumption that overrates one factor over the other which in most cases places the personality traits over the situation. The sharp contrast that was there at the start of the debate leading to the referrals that the two factors were extreme is eliminated when it is said that the debate in no longer controversial. These include particular statements that harshly criticised traits as being very crude. Borrowing from certain questions raised by scholars who researched on this topic, helps in understanding that the debate has been successfully concluded and does raise controversial issues as it did for the last few decades. David Funder (1996) for instance investigates whether personality traits are consistent and how they surmount the situational influences. Synthesis of the results of the study shows an almost universal acceptance by people that indeed individuals have patterns that indicate consistency in their personality traits. This clearly puts an end to the discussion on if personality traits affect human behaviour. The debate instead, shifts to how the traits influence people’s behaviour and the magnitude with which the effects run. Scholarly articles for instance the data collected by Walter Mischel (1995) is used to dispel the notion that personality traits influence an individual’s behaviour way beyond the effect brought by the situation. By quoting Mischel it can be passed that, the situation that an individual is in has such effect on his or her behaviour just as much as the personality traits. However, following the same could lead to mistaking that situational factors supersede traits when affecting behaviour (Epstein 1996). This would instead of eliminating the fundamental attribution error, create a situation that reverses the balance of the factors. This explains the reason Mischel came later in his other studies to refute some of his earlier theories that seemed to rank the external factors above the internal factors on their influence on people’s behaviour. If this line of thought is pursued, it brings the analysts to conclusion that indeed the debate on the person-to-situation has been concluded successfully. Justifying the End of the Debate The fact that some of the researchers in this field of psychology have come to recant some of the views that they held at the start of the debate that created the controversy proves that the conclusion of the discussion on the topic was amicable and successful (Revelle 1995). The fathers of situational line of thinking that resulted in situationists held varied arguments that were similar in one way or the other. In this analysis, their views can be summed to get the following ideas. By imploring the correlation coefficient, it was argued by the psychologists who held an ideology that the relationship that exists between behaviour and personality averaged below fifty percentile in their studies leading them to hold that there is no link between personality traits and behaviour (Fleeson 2013). This formulation only brought controversy between the two varying factors of behaviour in the discipline of personality psychology. It is also evident that psychology and especially the study of personality traits refer to human behaviour. Disputing the facts that the situation a person is in influences more on how he or she behaves is simple and without controversy because when making their judgement the holders of these views carried out their research from the laboratory. To emphasise that the debate has been concluded, it is obvious that clinical procedures cannot be used to justify social aspects of life (Magnusson and Endler 1977). Behaviour is supposed to be analysed in a human natural setting. Therefore, using reports gathered scientifically to illustrate the social aspects of life holds no water and in this perspective, questions emerge based on what was considered a very controversial debate. To understand the two factors, a researcher has to evaluate them equally (Dweck 1996). This directly eliminates the bias that would arise and in the process give undue advantage to one factor over the other. The case in point here is what situationists did. In their research, a lot of emphasis was put on understanding how situations affected the way people behaved with less consideration on the personality traits. By doing this, a deliberate acrimony would be created and as such, the other researchers would strive to counter the accusations (Pervin 1996). This clearly meant that the debate was not healthy to the topic of discussion and neither did some of the scholars involved mean well to the entire discipline of psychology. This whole argument culminated into the proponents of these views to limit their conclusion to the ideas that it is only through conditioning and learning that behaviour can be learnt. The study of human behaviour cannot be limited to specific methods. Evaluation of such issues that were considered the causes of the controversy leads to an understanding that in the current decade, the issue is not controversial and as such, it has been successfully concluded. Research by other scholars especially those who supported the ideology that personality traits have bigger influence an individual’s behaviour was extensive. Funder’s work (1997) for instance was comprehensive and qualifies for use in explaining how the person-to situation debate ended. In the modern day analysis, it can be said that the earlier psychologists who dwelt on this matter did not carry out their studies conclusively. Presently, it is possible to predict people’s behaviour based on their traits. People show this during their daily chores and while in different situations. To realize that there was nothing that could bring controversy requires the assessment of people when they are in their natural setting. Observing a person in such a situation, which is more practical because that would be real life research, proves that personality traits influences behaviour. This is informs those who believe that the personality traits influence the individual’s behaviour more than the situation. They assert that individuals have unswerving behaviour that influences their behaviour when in varied situations. Analysis of data collected by this group of researchers shows that there is actually a recurrent way depicted by people in different situations. The personality and trait theories developed during the studies conducted on this topic have helped a lot in ending the once controversial debate. The gaps that were left by the earliest psychologists who studied on this topic have been filled courtesy of these theories. The individual differences among people and the causes of the varied personalities can be said to be the reason behind most of the theorists focussing on the stability of the traits as opposed to the degree of fluctuation (Ozer 1986). The successful end of the person-to situation debate has led to the shift in the focus from what was considered controversial to the important areas of study in psychology. The focus now centres on the particular areas in the personality topic such as discussing the formal models used in the analysis the consistency of human behaviour (Kenrick and Funder 1991). The use of these models has been instrumental in emphasising the correlation of the two factors of behaviour. Individuals are very different in certain ways. However, different people may appear to have particular similarities in other situations too. For instance, there are people who are more social than others are. The same people may seem similar in other situations. With these revelation and congruence, the researchers are now focussed on striking a balance between how the people could be complete opposites in character in one situation and come to one side in behaviour in another arena (Endler & Parker 1992). Conclusively, it can be summed that indeed behaviour is a product of both situations and personality traits (Funder 1996). Accepting the complicated way in which this relationship exists is what ended the once great debate several decades ago. Understanding these factors powerfully, influence behaviour in their ways and at the same time dependent on each other eliminates controversy. Psychology researchers have been helped a lot the end of the person-situation debate. They have the freedom to choose their area of study without fears and contradictions and pursue their area of interest since the two factors have been approved (Fleeson and Noftle 2008). Traits are strong indicators of other social aspects in people that elicit much interest for study. They include distress, satisfaction in marriage, sadness and happiness among many more. Therefore, the controversy that pertained to whether the person or the situation influences people’s behaviour has come been successfully concluded. Attempts to develop a particular way in which the situational factors influence behaviour do not seem to be productive. The consequence was supposed to follow a path in a way that suggested that an individual behaved in a particular manner because of a specific environment in which he or she was in during the event. This was called the personality signatures (Mischel and Shoda 1995). This effort was aimed at eliminating what was referred to as error of measurement. Conclusion The synthesis of debate on person-to situation has successfully ended. It is acceptable to agree that the two factors of behaviour contribute to some degree to the behaviour of individuals. As discussed in this analysis, whereas traits describe particular patterns of behaviour across situations, the situational factors play a great role in predicting people’s behaviour when they are in certain conditions. The effects of these factors are also linked chronologically. Social roles that are external factors for instance, can make a person to develop goals that are specific to the situation that in the process make the same people to develop particular traits for the particular situation and time. From the above explanation, it is easy to understand the reason that brings in the element of interactionism as illustrated earlier in the discussion. The behaviour of a person is dependent on both the personality traits and the situation. The two factors in the end rely on each other. The relationship between traits and situations are however, intricate in nature. The end of the debate is important as it forms a foundation for the psychologists to study pertinent situation descriptions. The result of this has been the development of persons-in situations models that are useful when illustrating the complexity of personality along with identification of abstract aims of integrative methodologies that examine personality. Through this, it has become easy to convert the process of conducting such research into an empirical manner. The other benefit has been the introduction of the variance model in an excellent way to construct a structure that is used in the analysis of consistency in human behaviour. References Allport, W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Henry Holt. Dweck, S. (1996). Capturing the dynamic nature of personality, Journal of Research in Personality, 30: 348±362. Endler, S., & Parker, A. (1992). Interactionism revisited: Reflections on the continuing crisis in the personality area. European Journal of Personality, 6, 177-198. Epstein, S. (1996). Recommendations for the future development of personality psychology, Journal of Research in Personality, 30: 435-446. Fleeson, W. (2001). Towards a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 1011–1027. Fleeson, W & Noftle, E., (2008). The End of the Person-Situation Debate: Emerging Synthesis in the Answer to the Consistency Question. A Journal Compilation of Wake Forest University. Pp. 1667-1684 Fleeson, W. (2013). Current Directions in Psychological Science. A journal of Association for Psychological Science, 2, 1-6. Funder, C. (1996). Editorial: waiting for the big one, Journal of Research in Personality, 30: 454±455. Geen, G. (1984). Preferred stimulation levels in introverts and extraverts: Effects on arousal and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1303-1312. Hartshorne, H., & May, .A. (1928). Studies in the nature of character, studies in deceit. New York: Macmillan. Kenrick, T., & Funder, C. (1991). The person-situation debate: Do personality traits really exist? In V. Derlega, B. Winstead, & W. Jones, W. H. (Eds.) Personality: Contemporary Theory and Research (pp. 150-174). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Magnusson, D., & Endler, S. (1977). Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Mischel, W. (1999). Introduction to Personality. Harcourt Brace: Fort Worth. Mischel, W. & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive & affective system theory of personality: reconceptualising situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. A Journal of Psychological Review, 102: 246±268. Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1998). Reconciling processing dynamics and personality dispositions. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 229–258. Ozer, J. (1986). Consistency in Personality: A Methodological Framework. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Pervin, A. (1996). Personality: a view of the future based on a look at the past, Journal of Research in Personality, 30: 309±318. Revelle, W. (1995). Personality processes, Annual Review of Psychology, 46: 295±328. Vansteelandt, K. & Van Mechelen, I. (1998). Individual differences in situation & behavior profiles: a triple typology model', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75: 751±765. Wright, C. & Mischel, W. (1987). A conditional approach to dispositional constructs: the local predictability of social behavior, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55:454±469 Read More

Furthermore, people hold certain traits that develop, as an individual grows older (Hartshorne and May 1928). These statements can be relied upon to explain that individual traits influence the way people behave in a big way. An analysis of this eliminates the bias that would arise if the traits were considered above the situation a person is in leading to the fundamental attribution error. The scale that brings out clarity in the process of the debate also cuts the assumption that overrates one factor over the other which in most cases places the personality traits over the situation.

The sharp contrast that was there at the start of the debate leading to the referrals that the two factors were extreme is eliminated when it is said that the debate in no longer controversial. These include particular statements that harshly criticised traits as being very crude. Borrowing from certain questions raised by scholars who researched on this topic, helps in understanding that the debate has been successfully concluded and does raise controversial issues as it did for the last few decades.

David Funder (1996) for instance investigates whether personality traits are consistent and how they surmount the situational influences. Synthesis of the results of the study shows an almost universal acceptance by people that indeed individuals have patterns that indicate consistency in their personality traits. This clearly puts an end to the discussion on if personality traits affect human behaviour. The debate instead, shifts to how the traits influence people’s behaviour and the magnitude with which the effects run.

Scholarly articles for instance the data collected by Walter Mischel (1995) is used to dispel the notion that personality traits influence an individual’s behaviour way beyond the effect brought by the situation. By quoting Mischel it can be passed that, the situation that an individual is in has such effect on his or her behaviour just as much as the personality traits. However, following the same could lead to mistaking that situational factors supersede traits when affecting behaviour (Epstein 1996).

This would instead of eliminating the fundamental attribution error, create a situation that reverses the balance of the factors. This explains the reason Mischel came later in his other studies to refute some of his earlier theories that seemed to rank the external factors above the internal factors on their influence on people’s behaviour. If this line of thought is pursued, it brings the analysts to conclusion that indeed the debate on the person-to-situation has been concluded successfully.

Justifying the End of the Debate The fact that some of the researchers in this field of psychology have come to recant some of the views that they held at the start of the debate that created the controversy proves that the conclusion of the discussion on the topic was amicable and successful (Revelle 1995). The fathers of situational line of thinking that resulted in situationists held varied arguments that were similar in one way or the other. In this analysis, their views can be summed to get the following ideas.

By imploring the correlation coefficient, it was argued by the psychologists who held an ideology that the relationship that exists between behaviour and personality averaged below fifty percentile in their studies leading them to hold that there is no link between personality traits and behaviour (Fleeson 2013). This formulation only brought controversy between the two varying factors of behaviour in the discipline of personality psychology. It is also evident that psychology and especially the study of personality traits refer to human behaviour.

Disputing the facts that the situation a person is in influences more on how he or she behaves is simple and without controversy because when making their judgement the holders of these views carried out their research from the laboratory. To emphasise that the debate has been concluded, it is obvious that clinical procedures cannot be used to justify social aspects of life (Magnusson and Endler 1977).

Read More