Temperament and the Person-Situation Debate

  • Guus L. Van Heck
Part of the Perspectives on Individual Differences book series (PIDF)


The last two decades were a period of crisis and critical self-examination for Western personality psychology. Until the late 1960s, by far the most prominent model of personality was the dispositional model reflecting the conviction that a person’s strivings, beliefs, feelings, typical ways of behaving, etc., could be condensed in a rather limited set of personality traits. In this model it was further assumed that these traits are stable and consistent enough to be powerful predictors, not only of general behavioral trends across time and across situational domains, but also of single reactions in specific situations (see, e. g., Ozer, 1986).


Human Adaptation Temperament Variable Situation Selection Goal Category Emotional Person 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alker, H.A. Is personality situationally specific or intrapsychically consistent? Journal of Personality, 1972, 40, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allport, G.W. Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt, 1937.Google Scholar
  3. Amelang, M., & Borkenau, P. The trait concept: Current theoretical considerations, empirical facts, and implications for personality inventory construction. In A. Angleitner & J.S. Wiggins (Eds.). Personality assessment via questionnaires: Current issues in theory and measurement. Berlin: Springer, 1986.Google Scholar
  4. Beckwith, I. Prediction of emotional and social behavior, In J.D. Osofsky (Ed.). Handbook of infant development. New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1979.Google Scholar
  5. Bern, D.J., & Allen, A. On predicting some of the people some of the time: The search for cross-situational consistencies in behavior. Psychological Review, 1974, 81, 506–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Block, J. Advancing the psychology of personality: Paradigmatic shift or improving the quality of research. In D. Magnusson & N.S. Endler (Eds.). Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1977.Google Scholar
  7. Buss, A.H., & Plomin, R. A temperament theory of personality development. New York: Wiley, 1975.Google Scholar
  8. Buss, A.H., & Plomin, R. Temperament: Early developing personality traits. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1984.Google Scholar
  9. Buss, D.M. Human mate selection. American Scientist, 1985, 73, 47–51.Google Scholar
  10. Buss, D.M. Selection, evocation, and manipulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1987, 53, 1214–1221.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buss, D.M., & Craik, K.H. The act frequency approach to personality. Psychological Review, 1983, 90, 105–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buss, D.M., & Craik, K.H. Acts, dispositions, and personality. In B.A. Maher & W.B. Maher (Eds.). Progress in experimental personality research. Vol. 13. New York: Academic Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  13. Buss, D.M., Gomes, M., Higgins, D.S., & Lauterbach, K. Tactics of manipulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1987, 52, 1219–1229.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cantor, N., Mischel, W., & Schwartz, J.C. A prototype analysis of psychological situations. Cognitive Psychology, 1982, 14, 45–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cattell, R.B. Personality and learning theory: The structure of personality and its environment. Vol. 1. New York: Springer, 1979.Google Scholar
  16. Cattell, R.B. The development of attribution theory into spectrad theory, using the general perceptual model. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1982, 17, 169–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cattell, R.B. Handling prediction from psychological states and roles by modulation theory. In S.G. Cole, R.G. Demaree, & W. Curtis (Eds.). Applications of interactionist psychology: Essays in honor of Saul B. Sells. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1988.Google Scholar
  18. Chaplin, W.F., & Goldberg, L.R. A failure to replicate the Bern and Allen study of individual differences in cross-situational consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1985, 47, 1074–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cheek, J. Aggregation, moderator variables, and the validity of personality tests: A peer-rating study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1982, 43, 1254–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Conley, J.J. Longitudinal consistency of adult personality: Self-reported psychological characteristics across 45 years. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1984, 47, 1325–1333.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Costa, P.T. Jr., & McCrae, R.R. Age differences in personality structure revisited: Studies in validity, stability, and change. Aging and Human Development, 1977, 8, 261–275.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Costa, P.T. Jr., & McCrae, R.R. 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, 1988, 54, 853–863.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Costa, P.T. Jr., McCrae, R.R., & Arenberg, D. Enduring dispositions in adult males. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980, 38, 793–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Craik, K.H. Personality unvanquished. Contemporary Psychology, 1969, 14, 147–148.Google Scholar
  25. Cronbach, L.J., Gleser, G.C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. The dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability for scores and profiles. New York: Wiley, 1972.Google Scholar
  26. Diener, E., Larsen, R.J., & Emmons, R.A. Person x situation interactions: Choice of situations and congruence response models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1984, 47, 580–592.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Emmons, R.A., Diener, E., & Larsen, R.J. Choice and avoidance of everyday situations and affect congruence: Two models of reciprocal interactionism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1986, 51, 815–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Endler, N.S. Interactionism: A personality model, but not yet a theory. In M.M. Page (Ed.). Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  29. Endler, N.S. The temperamental nature of personality. European Journal of Personality, 1989, 3, 151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Endler, N.S., Hunt, J.McV., & Rosenstein, A. An S-R Inventory of Anxiousness. Psychological Monographs, 1962, 536, 1–31.Google Scholar
  31. Endler, N.S., & Magnusson, D. Toward an interactional psychology of personality. Psychological Bulletin, 1976, 83, 956–974.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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, 1079–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Epstein, S. The stability of behavior: II. Implications for psychological research. American Psychologist, 1980, 35, 790–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Epstein, S., & O’Brien, E.J. The person-situation debate in historical and current perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 1985, 98, 513–537.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Eysenck, H.J. Biological basis of personality. Nature, 1963, 199, 1031–1034.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fiske, D.W. The limits for the conventional science of personality. Journal of Personality, 1974, 42, 1–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Furnham, A. Personality and activity preference. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1981, 20, 57–68.Google Scholar
  38. Furnham, A., & Jaspars, J. The evidence for interactionism in psychology. A critical analysis of the situation-response inventories. Personality and Individual Differences, 1983, 4, 627–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Goldsmith, H.H. Genetic influences on personality from infancy. Child Development, 1983, 54, 331–355.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Goldsmith, H.H., Buss, A.H., Plomin, R., Rothbart, M.K., Thomas, A., Chess, S., Hinde, R.A., & McCall, R.R. Roundtable: What is temperament? Four approaches. Child Development, 1987, 58, 505–529.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Halverson, C.F., & Waldrop, M.F. Relations between preschool activity and aspects of intellectual and social behavior at age 7.5. Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1976, 12, 107–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hartshorne, H., & May, M.A. Studies in the nature of character: Studies in deceit. Vol. 1. New York: Macmillan, 1928.Google Scholar
  43. Hettema, P. J. Personality and adaptation. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1979.Google Scholar
  44. Hettema, P.J. (Ed.). Personality and environment: Assessment of human adaptation. Chichester: Wiley, 1989a.Google Scholar
  45. Hettema, P.J. Principles of personality assessment. In P.J. Hettema (Ed.). Personality and environment. Assessment of human adaptation. Chichester: Wiley, 1989b.Google Scholar
  46. Hettema, P.J. Transformation rules: Towards a taxonomy of everyday behavior. In P.J. Hettema (Ed.). Personality and environment. Assessment of human adaptation. Chichester: Wiley, 1989c.Google Scholar
  47. Hettema, P.J., & Hol, D.P. The assessment of behavioral strategies. In P.J. Hettema (Ed.). Personality and environment. Assessment of human adaptation Chichester: Wiley, 1989.Google Scholar
  48. Hettema, P.J., & Kenrick, D.T. Biosocial interaction and individual adaptation. In P.J. Hettema (Ed.). Personality and environment. Assessment of human adaptation. Chichester: Wiley, 1989.Google Scholar
  49. Hogan, R., DeSoto, C.B., & Solano, C. Traits, tests, and personality research. American Psychologist, 1977, 32, 255–264.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hunt, J.McV. Traditional personality theory in the light of recent evidence. American Scientist, 1965, 53, 80–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Kagan, J. Temperamental contributions to social behavior. American Psychologist, 1989, 44, 668–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kenrick, D.T., & Dantchik, A. Interactionism, idiographics, and the social-psychological invasion of personality. Journal of Personality, 1983, 51, 286–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kenrick, D.T., & Funder, D.C. Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the person-situation debate. American Psychologist, 1988, 43, 23–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kenrick, D.T., & Stringfield, D.O. Personality traits and the eye of the beholder: Crossing some traditional philosophical boundaries in the search for consistency in all of the people. Psychological Review, 1980, 87, 88–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lantermann, E.D. Interaktionen. Person, Situation und Handlung. München: Urban & Schwarzenberg, 1980.Google Scholar
  56. Lerner, J.V. The import of temperament for psychosocial functioning: Tests of a “goodness of fit” model. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1984, 30, 177–188.Google Scholar
  57. Magnusson, D. Personality in an interactional paradigm of research. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 1980, 1, 17–34.Google Scholar
  58. McDevitt, S.C., & Carey, W.B. The measurement of temperament in 3-to 7-year-old children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1978, 19, 245–253.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mehrabian, A. Characteristic individual reactions to preferred and unpreferred environments. Journal of Personality, 1978, 46, 717–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mischel, W. Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley, 1968.Google Scholar
  61. Mischel, W. Continuity and change in personality. American Psychologist, 1969, 24, 1012–1018.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mischel, W. On the future of personality measurement. American Psychologist, 1977, 32, 246–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Newcomb, T.M. Consistency of certain extrovert-introvert behavior patterns in 51 problem boys. New York: Columbia University, Teachers College, Bureau of Publications, 1929.Google Scholar
  64. Ozer, D. J. Consistency in personality: A methodological framework. New York: Springer, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Paunonen, S.V., & Jackson, D.N. Idiographic measurement strategies for personality and prediction: Some unredeemed promissory notes. Psychological Review, 1985, 92, 486–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Peterson, D.R. The clinical study of social behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968.Google Scholar
  67. Plomin, R. Behavior genetic methods. Journal of Personality, 1986, 54, 226–261.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Plomin, R., & Daniels, D. The interaction between temperament and environment: Methodological considerations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1984, 30, 149–162.Google Scholar
  69. Plomin, R., DeFries, J.C., & Loehlin, J.C. Genotype-environment interaction and correlation in the analysis of human behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 1977, 84, 309–322.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schank, R.C., & Abelson, R. Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1977.Google Scholar
  71. Secord, P.F. Social psychology in search for a paradigm. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1977, 3, 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Snyder, M. On the influence of individuals on situations. In N. Cantor & J. Kihlstrom (Eds.). Personality, cognition, and social interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1981.Google Scholar
  73. Snyder, M. The influence of individuals on situations: Implications for understanding the links between personality and social behavior. Journal of Personality, 1983, 57, 497–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Strelau, J. Temperament—personality—activity. London: Academic Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  75. Strelau, J. The concept of temperament in personality research. European Journal of Personality, 1987, 1, 107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Thomas, A., & Chess, S. Temperament and development. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1977.Google Scholar
  77. Van Heck, G.L. The construction of a general taxonomy of situations. In H. Bonarius, G.L. Van Heck, & N. Smid (Eds.). Personality psychology in Europe: Theoretical and empirical developments. Vol. 1. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger, 1984.Google Scholar
  78. Van Heck, G.L. Situation concepts: Definitions and classification. In P.J. Hettema (Ed.). Personality and environment. Assessment of human adaptation. Chichester: Wiley, 1989.Google Scholar
  79. Van Heck, G.L., Hettema, P.J., & Leidelmeijer, K.C.M. Temperament, situatie-voorkeuren en situatie-transformaties. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 1990, 45, 1–16.Google Scholar
  80. Van Heck, G.L., Jansen, J.H., & Lamberts, C.L.H. Cross-situationele variabiliteit en de voorspelbaarheid van personen. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 1986, 41, 346–357.Google Scholar
  81. Vernon, P.E. Personality assessment: A critical survey. New York: Wiley, 1964.Google Scholar
  82. West, S.G. Personality and prediction: An introduction. Journal of Personality, 1983, 51, 275–285.Google Scholar
  83. Wright, J.C., & Mischel, W. A conditional approach to dispositional constructs: The local predictability of social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1987, 53, 1159–1177.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wright, J.C., & Mischel, W. Conditional hedges and the intuitive psychology of traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1988, 55, 454–469.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zuckerman, M. The sensation seeking motive. In B. Maher (Ed.). Progress in experimental personality research. Vol. 7. New York: Academic Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  86. Zuckerman, M., Koestner, R., DeBoy, T., Garcia, T., Maresca, T.B.C., & Sartoris, J.M. To predict some of the people some of the time: A reexamination of the moderator variable approach in personality theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1988, 54, 1006–1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guus L. Van Heck
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations