Advertisement

Theoretical Divergences in the Person-Situation Debate

An Alternative Perspective
  • Philip K. Peake

Abstract

Over the last two decades, personality psychology has struggled with a set of issues that lie at the very core of the discipline. These issues, and I wish to emphasize that the issues are many, have fallen under the general rubric of the person-situation debate. In his article, Hyland argues that the debate is primarily a methodological rather than a theoretical one, that the main contributions of the debate are limited to increased attentiveness to situational influences and the size of the class of behaviors being explained, and that the term interaction is repeatedly used in a fashion that is quite misleading. As with so many other discussions of this topic, I find myself less concerned with the specifics of Hyland’s commentary than with his reading of the debate from which they derive. Hence, in the present discussion, I will deal with but a few of Hyland’s more important points in the context of an alternative perspective of the history, sources, and nature of the person-situation debate.

Keywords

Theoretical Divergence Radical Behaviorist Personality Psychology Theoretical Difference Interactional Perspective 
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. Allport, G. W. Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt, 1937.Google Scholar
  2. Allport, G. W. Traits revisited. American Psychologist, 1966, 21, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 1977, 84, 191–215.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bandura, A. Temporal dynamics and decomposition of reciprocal determinism: A reply to Phillips and Orton. Psychological Review, 1983, 90, 166–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowers, K. S. Situationism in psychology: An analysis and critique. Psychological Review, 1973, 80, 307–336.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ekehammar, B. Interactionism in personality from a historical perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 1974, 81, 1026–1048.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hartshorne, H., & May, M. A. Studies in the nature of character. (Vol. 1.) Studies in Deceit. New York: Macmillan, 1928.Google Scholar
  8. Mischel, W. Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley, 1968.Google Scholar
  9. Mischel, W. Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 1973, 80, 252–283.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Murray, H. A. Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press, 1938.Google Scholar
  11. Peterson, D. R. The clinical study of social behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968.Google Scholar
  12. 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

  • Philip K. Peake
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologySmith CollegeNorthamptonUSA

Personalised recommendations