Objectives and Questions in Personality Research

Reply to Commentators
  • Michael E. Hyland

Abstract

Of the four commentators, Peake and Pervin have published previously within the context of the person × situation debate. Neither Raynor nor Powers has published in that context, but both of these authors are associated with particular types of interactional theory. Briefly, Peake suggests an alternative interpretation of the development of the person × situation debate which emphasizes the difference between trait-and process-based personality theory. Pervin’s contribution concerns the relation between theory and methodology, and Pervin goes on to suggest a goal-oriented approach to understanding personality. Raynor describes recent advances in achievement motivation theory, showing how this goal-oriented theory incorporates many of the theoretical features of interactionism, including cyclical interactions. Finally, Powers shows how control theory can contribute to an understanding of cyclical interaction. Each of the four commentators contributes in a different way to a further understanding of the theoretical issues involved, and since they are writing from different perspectives, their assessments are sometimes quite different. Both Peake and Pervin are critical of some of the points made in my paper, and their critical contribution is assessed in the present remark.

Keywords

Process Theory Person Variable Stability Coefficient Personality Theory Theoretical Difference 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Atkinson, J. W. Studying personality in the context of an advanced motivational psychology. American Psychologist, 1981, 36, 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 1977, 84, 191–215.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. Temporal dynamics and decomposition of reciprocal determinism: A reply to Philips and Orton. Psychological Review, 1983, 90, 166–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bateson, G. Mind and nature. London: Wildwood House, 1979.Google Scholar
  5. Bowers, K. S. Situationism in psychology: An analysis and a critique. Psychological Review, 1973, 80, 307–336.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowers, K. S. There’s more to lago than meets the eye: A clinical account of personal consistency. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1977.Google Scholar
  7. Chalmers, A. F. What is this thing called science? Milton Keynes, U.K.: Open University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  8. Day, H. D., Marshal, D., Hamilton, B. & Christy, J. Some cautionary notes regarding the use of aggregated scores as a measure of behavioral stability. Journal of Research in Personality, 1983, 17, 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Epstein, S. The stability of behavior: I. On predicting most of the people much of the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 1097–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Epstein, S. The stability of behavior: II. Implications for psychological research. American Psychologist, 1980, 35, 790–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Epstein, S. The stability of confusion: A reply to Mischel and Peake. Psychological Review, 1983, 90, 179–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hanson, N. R. Patterns of discovery: An inquiry into the conceptual foundations of science. London: Cambridge University Press, 1958.Google Scholar
  13. Hyland, M. E. Introduction to theoretical psychology. London: Macmillan, 1981.Google Scholar
  14. McClelland, D. C. Personality. New York: Sloane, 1951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mischel, W. Toward a cognitive social learning conceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 1973, 80, 252–283.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mischel, W., & Peake, P. K. Beyond déjà vu in the search for cross-situational consistency. Psychological Review, 1982, 89, 730–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Murray, H. A. Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press, 1938.Google Scholar
  18. Pervin, L. A. The stasis and flow of behavior: Toward a theory of goals. In M. M. Page (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  19. Popper, K. R. Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge, 1963.Google Scholar
  20. Powers, W. T. Behavior: The control of perception. Chicago: Aldine, 1973.Google Scholar
  21. Powers, W. T. Quantitative analysis of purposive systems. Psychological Review, 1978, 85, 417–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Underwood, B. J. Individual differences as a crucible in theory construction. American Psychologist, 1975, 30, 128–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vernon, P. E. Personality assessment: A critical survey. New York: Wiley, 1964.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael E. Hyland
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyPlymouth PolytechnicPlymouth, DevonEngland

Personalised recommendations