The Psychological Record

, Volume 69, Issue 1, pp 131–142 | Cite as

Individual Consistencies as Interactive Styles under Decision and Ambiguity Contingencies

  • Emilio Ribes-Iñesta
  • Darcy Raúl Martínez-MontorEmail author
Original Article


Mainstream study of individual differences, including so-called personality, are based on responses to items and scores in tests that are not directly descriptive or predictive of actual behaviors in real-time situations. A behavioral account of individual differences should deal with the idiosyncratic consistencies of individuals´ behavior that make every individual different to others in the way in which interact with situational events. An alternative methodology is presented to study individual consistencies as interactive styles. Styles are conceived as idiosyncratic profiles that characterize individuals interacting with gradients defining situational contingencies. Two experimental studies were carried out to find individual consistencies in two different situations: decision and ambiguity contingencies. Six college students participated in two studies exploring individual consistencies in each of the two contingency situations. They were exposed to four different computer tasks, of which two corresponded to each contingency situation. One of the tasks in each situation was presented twice, within a 1-month interval. All participants performed differently in both contingency situations but showed within-subject consistent functional profiles as depicted by 8-degree polynomial regression analyses. Findings support the possibility of identifying individual consistencies across time and across situations in real-time performances.


Individual differences Interactive styles Individual consistencies Ambiguity contingencies Decision contingencies 



The second author acknowledges the doctoral fellowship granted by the National Council of Science and Technology of México (CONACYT) to carry out this research.


This study was funded by the National Council of Science and Technology of México (CONACYT) (grant number 286405).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Emilio Ribes-Iñesta declares that he has no conflict of interest. Darcy Raúl Martínez-Montor declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
  2. Bruner, J. S., & Goodman, C. C. (1947). Value and need as organizing factors in perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 42, 33–44. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Campbell, K., Bonacci, A., Shelton, J., Exline, J., & Bushman, B. (2004). Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83, 29–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Catania, A. C., Matthews, B. A., & Shimoff, E. (1982). Instructed versus shaped human verbal behavior: Interactions with nonverbal responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 38, 233–248. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Cattell, R. B. (1965). The scientific analysis of personality. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  6. Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Handbook for the sixteen personality factor questionnaire (16PF). Champaign: IPAT.Google Scholar
  7. Harzem, P. (1984). Experimental analysis of individual differences and personality. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 42, 385–395.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Kantor, J. R. (1924–1926). Principles of psychology (Vols. 1–2). Chicago: Principia Press.Google Scholar
  9. Koch, T., Ortner, T. M., Eid, M., Caspers, J., & Schmitt, M. (2014). Evaluating the construct validity of objective personality tests using a multitrait-multimethod-multioccasion-(MTMM-M)-approach. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30, 208–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509–516.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Musek, J. (2007). A general factor of personality: Evidence for the big one in the five-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1213–1233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. O’Connor, M., & Paunonen, S. (2007). Big five personality predictors of post-secondary academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 971–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ribes, E. (1997). Causality and contingency: Some conceptual considerations. The Psychological Record, 47, 619–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ribes, E. (2018). El estudio científico de la conducta individual: Una introducción a la Psicología Científica. Ciudad de México: Manual Moderno.Google Scholar
  16. Ribes, E., & Contreras, S. (2007). Individual consistencies in behavior: Achievement persistence interactions as personality styles. Psychological Reports, 101, 365–377. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ribes, E., Contreras, S., Martínez, C., Viladrich, C., & Doval, E. (2005). Individual consistencies across time and tasks: A replication of interactive styles. The Psychological Record, 55, 619–631. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ribes, E., & Martínez, H. (1990). Interaction of contingencies and rule instructions in the performance of human subjects in conditional discrimination. The Psychological Record, 40, 565–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ribes, E., & Sánchez, S. (1990). El problema de las diferencias individualidad: un análisis conceptual de la personalidad. In E. Ribes (Ed.), Problemas conceptuales en el análisis del comportamiento humano (pp. 79–99). Mexico City: Trillas.Google Scholar
  20. Ribes, E., & Sánchez, S. (1992). Individual behavior consistencies as interactive styles: Their relation to personality. The Psychological Record, 42, 369–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. New York: Barnes & Noble.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emilio Ribes-Iñesta
    • 1
  • Darcy Raúl Martínez-Montor
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Universidad VeracruzanaXalapaMexico

Personalised recommendations