Dispositional and Situational Variables

Dispositional and Situational Variables
Despite a widespread tendency among people to describe themselves and
others in traitlike terms (intelligent, friendly, aggressive, domineering, and
so forth), research has shown that a person’s behavior cannot be predicted
from a few broadly generalized personality traits. This does not mean that
behavior is totally inconsistent, but that dispositions alone are insufficient to
explain consistency and that dispositional, as well as situational, variables
need to be taken into account for a complete analysis.

To separate the effects of person and situation variables on behavior,
Mischel and his colleagues conducted a series of experiments. In one study,
the experimenters assessed adolescents’ dispositions toward success or failure.
Weeks later they had them solve skill-related tasks and, regardless of
their actual performance, gave one group success, a second group failure,
and a third group no feedback on their performance. Then the adolescents
had to choose between a less desirable reward, one for which attainment was
independent of performance on similar tasks, and a preferred reward, for
which attainment was performance-dependent. In both bogus feedback
conditions, the situational variables had a powerful effect and completely
overrode preexisting dispositions toward success or failure. Adolescents
who believed they had failed the tasks more often selected the noncontingent
reward, while those who believed they had succeeded chose the contingent
reward. For subjects in the no-feedback condition, however, the preexisting
expectancy scores were highly accurate predictors of their reward
choices. This study illustrates how dispositions emerge under weak situational
cues but play a trivial role when the setting provides strong cues for
behavior. Therefore, Mischel (1973) considers it more meaningful to analyze
“behavior-contingency units” that link specific behavior patterns to
those conditions in which they are likely to occur, rather than looking only
at behavior. In other words, instead of labeling people “aggressive,” it would
be more useful to specify under what conditions these people display aggressive
behaviors. Such precise specifications would guard against an oversimplified
trait approach and highlight the complexities and idiosyncrasies of
behavior as well as its interdependence with specific stimulus conditions.