1. Chapter 4:
Personality Traits, Situations, and
Behavior
The Personality Puzzle
Sixth Edition
by David C. Funder
Slides created by
Tera D. Letzring
Idaho State University
© 2013 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
1

2. Objectives
• Introduce the trait approach to understanding
personality
• Discuss the person-situation debate
• Discuss how personality affects and predicts
important life outcomes
• Discuss the resolution of the person-situation
debate
2
© 2013 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

3. Think About It
• Describe yourself or someone you know well.
• What behaviors of this person could be
predicted from this description?
• Is this person like this in every situation?
3
© 2013 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

4. Two Points to Keep in Mind
1. This approach is based on empirical research.
– Mostly correlational
– Emphasis on accurate measurement of traits
– Traits should be able to predict behavior.
4
© 2013 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

5. Two Points to Keep in Mind
2. This approach focuses on individual
differences.
– Strength: assesses and attempts to understand
how people differ
– Weakness: neglects aspects of personality
common to all people and how each person is
unique
5
© 2013 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

6. The Measurement of
Individual Differences
• “Every man is in certain respects (a) like all
other men, (b) like some other men, (c) like no
other man” (Kluckhohn & Murray, 1961, p. 53,
as cited in Funder, 2012, p. 108)
• Trait approach focuses on the second level
• Traits are the building blocks of personality
6
© 2013 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

7. People Are Inconsistent
• Personality traits are not the only factors that
control behavior.
• Ask yourself:
– Do traits exist?
– Is everybody basically the same, and behavior
changes according to the situation?
• Your answers may depend on your age.
7
© 2013 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

8. The Person-Situation Debate
• Which is more important for determining
what people do, the person or the situation?
• Mischel (1968)
• Why this is important
8
© 2013 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

9. The Person-Situation Debate: Three
Issues
1. Does the personality of an individual
transcend the immediate situation and
provide a consistent guide to his actions, or is
what a person does utterly dependent on the
situation at that time?
9
© 2013 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

10. The Person-Situation Debate: Three
Issues
2. Are common, ordinary intuitions about
people fundamentally flawed or basically
correct?
3. Why do psychologists continue to argue
about the consistency of personality when
the basic empirical questions were settled
long ago?
10
© 2013 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

11. The First Situationist Argument:
Predictability
• There is an upper limit to how well one can
predict what a person will do based on any
measurement of that person’s personality, and
this upper limit is low.
• Mischel looked at relationships of
self, informant, and behavioral data to
behavioral data
• Correlations rarely exceeded .30 (Nisbett says
.40)
11
© 2013 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

12. The Response to the First Situationist
Argument: Predictability
• Unfair, selective literature review by Mischel
– Studies with poor methodology
– But some found evidence of consistency
12
© 2013 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

13. The Response to the First Situationist
Argument: Predictability
• We can do better.
– The .40 limit may be due to poor methodology.
– Get out of the laboratory.
– Study individual consistency as a moderator
variable.
– Focus on behavioral trends.
– This is difficult to do.
13
© 2013 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

14. The Response to the First Situationist
Argument: Predictability
• A correlation of .40 is not small.
– Comparison to an absolute standard: number of
correct and incorrect predictions
• BESD: r = .40 → 70% accuracy
– Comparison to a relative standard: how well
situations predict behavior
14
© 2013 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

15. The Second Situationist Argument:
Situationism
• Situations are more important than
personality traits in determining behavior.
• Determining how personality affects behavior
• Determining how situations affect behavior:
– Not legitimate
– Could be due to other personality traits
– Says nothing about important aspects of the
situation
15
© 2013 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

16. The Second Situationist Argument:
Situationism
• How the effects of situations on behavior
should be determined
– Convert statistical significance tests to effect sizes
– Funder & Ozer, 1983: situational effect sizes = .36
to .42
16
© 2013 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

17. The Second Situationist Argument:
Situationism
17
© 2013 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

18. The Second Situationist Argument:
Situationism
• Conclusion: Both personality and situations
are important determinants of behavior.
18
© 2013 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

19. The Third Situationist Argument:
Person Perceptions are Erroneous
• The professional practice of personality
assessment is a waste of time and everyday
intuitions about people are fundamentally
flawed.
• Responses
– The effects of personality on behavior are large
enough to be perceived accurately.
– The importance of traits is reflected in our
language.
19
© 2013 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

20. Personality and Life
• “Personality is important on more than just
theoretical grounds” (p. 127).
• Personality affects and predicts important life
outcomes.
• Over time, how a person acts will add up.
20
© 2013 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

21. 21
© 2013 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

22. Persons and Situations
• “Personality traits are better for describing
how people act in general” (p. 129).
• Relationships, jobs, and business
– Number of friends, level of agreement with them,
and the extent to which people have successful
and nonabusive relationships
– How much people will promote the goals of the
organization for which they work
– CEOs borrowing money for companies and
personal homes
22
© 2013 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

23. Persons and Situations
• Interactionism
– Definition
– The effect of a personality variable may depend
on the situation, or vice versa.
– Certain types of people go to or find themselves in
different types of situations.
– People change the situations that they are in.
– Example: Stanford Prison Experiment
23
© 2013 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

24. Persons and Situations
• Persons, situations, and values
– Situationism’s view of human nature
• People are free to do whatever they want.
• Everybody is equal, and differences are a
function of the situation.
• “If the situation can be all-powerful, then
nothing we do is ever really our fault” (p. 132).
24
© 2013 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

25. Persons and Situations
• Persons, situations, and values
– Personality’s view of human nature
• Behavior is determined by personality.
• People can develop consistent identities and
styles that allow them to be themselves across
situations.
25
© 2013 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

26. Persons and Situations
• Resolution of the person-situation debate
– “People maintain their personalities even as they
adapt their behavior to particular situations” (p.
133).
– People can flexibly adapt to situations and have a
generally consistent personal style.
• Conclusion: People are psychologically
different, and these differences matter.
26
© 2013 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

27. Think About the Three Issues of the
Person-Situation Debate
– During the Nuremberg trials after World War
II, some participants in wartime atrocities
defended themselves by saying they were “only
following orders.” Is this the same thing as saying
that the situation was so strong that their
behavior was not determined by their own
personal characteristics, so they should not be
blamed? What do you think of this defense?
27
© 2013 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

28. Think About the Three Issues of the
Person-Situation Debate
– Sociologists point out that criminal behavior is
much more likely from people who come from
crime-prone neighborhoods, low economic levels,
and unstable family backgrounds. These are all
situational factors. Does this fact imply that crime
comes from the situation and not from the
person? If so, how can we hold a person
responsible for criminal actions?
– How are these cases similar to and different from
each other?
28
© 2013 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

29. Clicker Question #1
The person-situation debate
a)was based on a disagreement about whether
the personality coefficient had an upper limit of
about .30.
b)was a waste of time.
c)was based on the finding that people are
somewhat inconsistent across time.
d)was resolved with the finding that personality
is more important than the situation for
determining behavior.
29
© 2013 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

30. Clicker Question #2
Which of the following is true of the trait
approach to understanding personality?
a) It is based on empirical data.
b) It is based on case studies.
c)It focuses on how people are similar to each
other.
d)It proposes that traits are the only things that
influence behavior.
30
© 2013 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

31. Clicker Question #3
The trait approach proposes that
a)personality matters because it affects and
predicts important life outcomes.
b)personality is important because it has small
effects on behavior that add up over time.
c)personality is better for explaining how people
behave in general than are situations.
d)All of the above.
31
© 2013 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.