PROFITING FROM CONTROVERSY - LESSONS FROM THE PERSON-SITUATION DEBATE
PROFITING FROM CONTROVERSY - LESSONS FROM THE PERSON-SITUATION DEBATE
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/0003-066x.43.1.23
复制
发表时间：
1988-01-01
影响因子：
16.4
通讯作者：
FUNDER, DC
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
KENRICK, DT;FUNDER, DC
在过去的二十年里，人格-情境的争论一直主导着人格心理学，并在临床、社会和组织心理学中产生了重要的影响。这场争论触及到了这些学科的核心，因为它使内部倾向对行为有重要影响的核心假设受到了考验。根据科学进步的新观点，争论起到了缩小相互竞争的假设范围的有益作用。有鉴于此，我们研究了在人-情境辩论过程中出现的七个假设，从最悲观到最不悲观的一致性，歧视性人格特质的存在。积累的证据无法支持以下假设：人格特质仅仅是（a）旁观者的看法，（B）语义错觉，（c）基本速率准确性的人工制品，（d）共享刻板印象的人工制品，（e）由于观察者之间的讨论（他们忽略了有利于口头自我展示或声誉的行为），或（f）仅仅是情境性的副产品。证据也不支持假设（g），即虽然特质与行为有关，但这种关系太小，不重要。然而，我们并没有像20年前所理解的那样，简单地兜了一圈，重新接受这些特征。这些假设产生的研究使我们能够更好地指定人格评估有效的情况。
For the past two decades the person—situation debate has dominated personality psychology and had important repercussions in clinical, social, and organizational psychology. This controversy strikes to the heart of each of these disciplines because it puts on trial the central assumption that internal dispositions have an important influence on behavior. According to emerging views of scientific progress, controversy serves the useful function of narrowing the field of competing hypotheses. In this light, we examine seven hypotheses that arose during the course of the person—situation debate, ranging from most to least pessimistic about the existence of consensual, discriminative personality traits. The accumulated evidence fails to support the hypotheses that personality traits are simply (a) in the eye of the beholder,(b) semantic illusions,(c) artifacts of base-rate accuracy,(d) artifacts of shared stereotypes,(e) due to discussion between observers (who ignore behavior in favor of verbal self-presentation or reputation), or (f) mere by-products of situational consistencies. Evidence also fails to support the hypothesis (g) that although traits are related to behavior, the relationship is too small to be important. Yet we have not simply come full circle to a reacceptance of traits as they were understood 20 years ago. Research generated by these hypotheses has allowed us to better specify the circumstances under which personality assessments will be valid.