Dictionary of Arguments


Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]

Screenshot Tabelle Begriffes

 

Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.

Enhanced Search:
Search term 1: Author or Term Search term 2: Author or Term


together with


The author or concept searched is found in the following 4 entries.
Disputed term/author/ism Author
Entry
Reference
Behavior Evolutionary Psychology Corr I 268
Behavior/evolutionary psychology/Figueredo: One seemingly paradoxical suggestion derivable from evolutionary psychology is that, while personality differences are likely adaptive, they also constrain individuals’ behavioural flexibility. MacDonald (1998)(1) suggested that different personality traits are best suited for the occupation of different social and ecological niches. Viewed differently, this means that individuals may be constrained in their behavioural repertoires based on the particular suite of personality characteristics that they possess, due to heredity and environmental factors. In fact, according to some psychologists who favour the situation side of the person-situation debate (e.g., Mischel, Shoda and Smith 2004(2)), the very definition of a personality disorder is unchanging personality in the face of the changing environmental contexts that a person encounters. >Situations/Mischel. Cf. >Ecology/evolutionary psychology, >Niches/evolutionary psychology, >Adaption/evolutionary psychology.
FigueredoVsMischel: encounters. In contrast, we propose that the biological preparedness for and the developmental plasticity of certain behaviours can and do vary independently of each other (Figueredo, Hammond and McKiernan 2006)(3).


1. MacDonald, K. B. 1998. Evolution, culture, and the five-factor model, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 29: 119–49
2. Mischel, W., Shoda, Y. and Smith, R. E. 2004. Introduction to personality: toward an integration, 7th edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons
3. Figueredo, A. J., Hammond, K. R. and McKiernan, E. C. 2006. A Brunswikian evolutionary developmental theory of preparedness and plasticity, Intelligence 34: 211–27


Aurelio José Figueredo, Paul Gladden, Geneva Vásquez, Pedro Sofio, Abril Wolf and Daniel Nelson Jones, “Evolutionary theories of personality”, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.) 2009. The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press


Corr I
Philip J. Corr
Gerald Matthews
The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009

Corr II
Philip J. Corr (Ed.)
Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018
Consistency Mischel Corr I 46
Consistency/Situations/Personality/Mischel/Asendorpf: The first large study ((s) in order to test the consistency of behavior of persons in different situations) was conducted by Hartshorne and May (1928)(1) who designed eight tests and observational settings in order to observe inter-individual differences in honest behaviour among more than 800 school children. The cross-situational consistency between two such situations was only .19 which was much lower than the retest stability within situations. This problem was debated for some time but remained unresolved and nearly forgotten until Mischel (1968)(2) revived this consistency debate by more empirical evidence, proposing a ‘magic limit’ of .30 for what he called the ‘cross-situational consistency of behaviour’. His conclusion was that traits exist only in the eye of the observers but have no reality, because behaviour is so much situation-dependent. >Personality Traits/Psychological Theories, >Situations/Psychological Theories.

1. Hartshorne, H. and May, M. A. 1928. Studies in the nature of character, vol. 1, Studies in deceit. New York: MacMillan
2. Mischel, W. 1968. Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley


Jens B. Asendorpf, “Personality: Traits and situations”, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.) 2009. The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.



Corr II 106
Consistency/Mischel/Fleeson/Noftle/Eysenck, M.W.: Fleeson and Noftle (2008)(1) argued that we can potentially identify 36 concepts of consistency. For example, we can assess behavioural consistency across time, situation content, or behaviour content. Measures of consistency can involve correlating two single behaviours or aggregates of behaviour. In addition, we can distinguish between absolute consistency (i.e., the extent to which each individual’s behaviour is the same across situations) and relative consistency (i.e., the extent to which each individual’s behaviour relative to other individuals remains the same across situations).
II 109
Mischel (1968)(2) [argued that] individuals typically exhibit far less behavioural consistency across situations than would be predicted from the trait approach.
II 110
VsMischel: (…) Mischel (1968)(2) failed to consider consistency findings in the personality literature in the context of psychology generally. Meyer et al. (2001)(3) considered numerous findings across many areas within psychology. The typical finding was that the modal effect size expressed as a correlation was between +.10 and +.40 for psychology as a whole. (…) Mischel (1968)(2) [also] exaggerated the value of high consistency between, say, a measure of personality and some behavioural measure but minimized the nature of the behavioural outcome being predicted. In contrast, major personality traits have been shown to have a wide range of applicability to important real-world outcomes even though there was only moderate consistency or predictability. [Furthermore,] Mischel argued that individuals display very
II 111
limited cross-situational consistency on the basis of studies that had mostly assessed consistency by correlating single behaviours in different situations. This approach has the disadvantage that there can be substantial errors of measurement when the focus is on single behaviours (Epstein, 1977)(4). Finally, there are criticisms to be made of Mischel’s (1968) predominant emphasis on personality and situational factors as independent factors that influence behaviour. The four influences largely or totally ignored by Mischel are as follows: (1) influence of personal factors (e.g., personality) on the situation;
(2) influence of behaviour on personal factors (e.g., personality;
(3) influence of behaviour on the situation; and
(4) influence of the situation on personal factors (e.g., personality).
Of most relevance here is the notion that the situations individuals choose to be in are determined in part by their personality. In most research, the experimenter determines the situations in which participants find themselves and they are unable to change or control the situation. With such research, it is impossible to demonstrate the impact of personality on situational choice.


1. Fleeson, W., & Noftle, E. E. (2008). Where does personality have its influence? A supermatrix of consistency concepts. Journal of Personality, 76, 1355–1385.
2. Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. London: Wiley.
3. Meyer, G. J., Finn, S. E., Eyde, L. D., Kay, G. G., Moreland, K. L., Dies, R. R., et al. (2001). Psychological testing and psychological assessment. American Psychologist, 56, 128–165.
4. Epstein, S. (1977). Traits are alive and well. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.


Eysenck, Michael W.: “The Challenge to Trait Theory Revisiting Mischel (1968)”, In: Philip J. Corr (Ed.) 2018. Personality and Individual Differences. Revisiting the classical studies. Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne: Sage, p.p 101-114.


Corr I
Philip J. Corr
Gerald Matthews
The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009

Corr II
Philip J. Corr (Ed.)
Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018
Personality Traits Mischel Corr I 46
Traits/Mischel: Mischel (1968)(1) revived [the] consistency debate (see > Consistency/Mischel) by more empirical evidence, proposing a ‘magic limit’ of .30 for what he called the ‘cross-situational consistency of behaviour’. His conclusion was that traits exist only in the eye of the observers but have no reality, because behaviour is so much situation-dependent.

1. Mischel, W. 1968. Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley


Jens B. Asendorpf, “Personality: Traits and situations”, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.) 2009. The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.



Corr II 102
Personality Traits/Mischel/Eysenck, Michael W.: According to [Mischel], what happens very often in personality research and theorizing is as follows: ‘To invoke trait names as explanatory entities … confuses constructions about behaviour with the causes of behaviour’. Mischel is alleging that the entire trait approach is based on a circular argument and so lacks explanatory power (…). Second, Mischel (1968)(1) was sceptical of the value of inferring personality traits on the basis of observers’ ratings of other individuals: ‘The conviction that highly generalised traits do exist may reflect in part (but not entirely) behavioural consistencies that are constructed by observers, rather than actual consistency in the subject’s behavior (…).
II 103
[Mischel 1968] was also skeptical of the value of self-reports, arguing that they can be inaccurate because of ‘a variety of distorting motivational forces, including deliberate faking, lack of insight and unconscious defensive reactions’ (p. 69)(1). The fourth major criticism made by Mischel (1968, pp. 9–10)(1) was based on the argument that support for the value of the trait-based approach ‘would require demonstrating that people do behave consistently across many diverse situations (…).
II 104
The fifth major criticism that Mischel (1968)(1) made of the trait approach was an extension of his fourth criticism (…). (…) he argued that this strongly implies that their behaviour is determined primarily by the specific nature of each situation.
II 107
VsMischel: (…) Mischel does not consider at all the possibility that individual differences in major personality traits or factors might be determined at least in part by genetic factors. Vukasović and Bratko (2015)(2) [found that] 39% of individual differences in extraversion were due to genetic factors, as were 42% of individual differences in neuroticism and 30% of those in psychoticism.
II 108
[Looking at Mischel’s second and third argument] it is clear that Mischel (1968)(1) expected little correspondence between self-report and rating data. [This can be refuted by looking at several studies, e.g. by Costa and McCrae (1988)(3)]. [They] carried out a study on married couples which included comparing self-reports and spouse ratings for three factors assessed by the NEO Personality Inventory: Neuroticism, Extraversion and Openness. Self-reports and ratings for neuroticism correlated +.54, and the correlations were +.60 and +.52 for extraversion and openness, respectively. These findings are most plausibly explained on the basis that the validity of raters’ judgements tends to increase with increased length of knowledge of the other person.
II 109
We now consider Mischel’s (1968)(1) fifth criticism discussed above by looking briefly at research that has compared the predictive power of individual differences in personality with situational differences. Sarason, Smith and Diener (1975)(4) calculated the percentage of the variance (differences in behaviour among individuals) accounted for by personality and by the situation across 138 experiments. On average, the situation accounted for 10.3% of the variance whereas personality accounted for 8.7% of the variance. Thus, behaviour was not determined substantially more by situational factors than by personality.

1. Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. London: Wiley.
2. Vukasović, T., & Bratko, D. (2015). Heritability of personality: A meta-analysis of behaviour genetic studies. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 769–785.
3. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 853–863.
4. Sarason, I. G., Smith, R. E., & Diener, E. (1975). Personality research: Components of variance attributable to person and situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 199–204.


Eysenck, Michael W.: “The Challenge to Trait Theory Revisiting Mischel (1968)”, In: Philip J. Corr (Ed.) 2018. Personality and Individual Differences. Revisiting the classical studies. Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne: Sage, pp. 101-114.


Corr I
Philip J. Corr
Gerald Matthews
The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009

Corr II
Philip J. Corr (Ed.)
Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018
Situations Mischel Corr I 28
Situations/Mischel/VsMischel/Funder: However, even though the past half-decade of social psychological literature has granted the lion’s share of explanatory power to situational forces, still missing is any real technology for defining, for characterizing, or measuring them. This lack has been noted repeatedly: Swann and Seyle (2005)(1) argue that certain current avenues of research (such as Mischel and Shoda’s (1999)(2) CAPS model) will not recognize their full potential until ‘the development of a comprehensive taxonomy of situations’ (Swann and Seyle 2005, p. 162). Mischel himself once suggested that describing differences in situations might be more productive than describing the behaviours of people in them (Mischel and Peake 1983)(3). See Situations/Asendorpf, >Situations/Funder.
1. Swann, W. B. and Seyle, C. 2005, Personality psychology’s comeback and its emerging symbiosis with social psychology, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31: 155–65
2. Mischel, W. and Shoda, Y. 1999. Integrating dispositions and processing dynamics within a unified theory of personality: the cognitive-affective personality system. New York, NY: Guilford Press
3. Mischel, W. and Peake, P. K. 1983. Some facets of consistency: replies to Epstein, Funder, and Bem, Psychological Review 90: 394–402


Seth A Wagerman & David C. Funder, “Personality psychology of situations”, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.) 2009. The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.


Corr I
Philip J. Corr
Gerald Matthews
The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009

Corr II
Philip J. Corr (Ed.)
Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018