Taxonomies of person characteristics are well developed, whereas taxonomies of psychologically important situation characteristics are underdeveloped. A working model of situation perception implies the existence of taxonomizable dimensions of psychologically meaningful, important, and consequential situation characteristics tied to situation cues, goal affordances, and behavior. Such dimensions are developed and demonstrated in a multi-method set of 6 studies. First, the "Situational Eight DIAMONDS" dimensions Duty, Intellect, Adversity, Mating, pOsitivity, Negativity, Deception, and Sociality (Study 1) are established from the Riverside Situational Q-Sort (Sherman, Nave, & Funder, 2010, 2012, 2013; Wagerman & Funder, 2009). Second, their rater agreement (Study 2) and associations with situation cues and goal/trait affordances (Studies 3 and 4) are examined. Finally, the usefulness of these dimensions is demonstrated by examining their predictive power of behavior (Study 5), particularly vis-à-vis measures of personality and situations (Study 6). Together, we provide extensive and compelling evidence that the DIAMONDS taxonomy is useful for organizing major dimensions of situation characteristics. We discuss the DIAMONDS taxonomy in the context of previous taxonomic approaches and sketch future research directions.

The joint influence of persons and situations on behavior has long been posited by personality and social psychological theory (Funder, 2006; Lewin, 1951). However, a lack of tools for real-time behavioral and situation assessment has left direct investigations of this sort immobilized. This study combines recent advances in situation assessment and experience sampling methodology to examine the simultaneous effects of personality traits and situation characteristics on real-time expressions of behavior and emotion in N = 210 participants. The results support an additive model such that both personality traits and situation characteristics independently predict real-time expressions of behavior and emotion. These results have implications for several prominent theoretical perspectives in personality, including both trait and cognitive theories.

in Berlin (Germany). We also wish to thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions as well as the editor, Wendy Johnson, for her outstanding support, comments on, and patience with our manuscript. Any opinions and remaining errors are solely our own.Researchers interested in situations and person  situation may become associated members of the Situation Research Network (SRN) to be found at http://www.situation-research.com/. The website is intended to (a) compile information on all kinds of situation research, (b) grant access to practical resources (e.g., R codes, scales, etc.), and (c) provide interested researchers a platform for communication and collaboration.Correspondence: John Rauthmann, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, D-10099 Berlin, Germany. Phone: 0049-30-20930049-30- -18360049-30- . Fax: 0049-30-2093 jfrauthmann@gmail.com. Principles of Situation Research 2 AbstractThere is currently no consensus on how to study psychological situations, and situation research is still riddled with problems of conceptualization (What is a situation, what is it not?) and measurement (How can situational information be assessed?). This target article formulates three core principles (with corollaries) to provide a foundation for psychological situation research:The Processing, Reality, and Circularity Principles. These principles build upon each other, ranging from basic to more complex issues (e.g., how to study situations in both objective and subjective terms). They are intended to guide and spur more coherent research programs that produce cumulative knowledge on psychological situations. We conclude with a plea for reallife, multi-method, multi-situation, multi-time, multi-group designs that can illuminate the interwoven dynamics between persons (with their personalities and behavior) and situations. Furnham, & Graham, 1981; Edwards & Templeton, 2005; Endler, 1993;Frederiksen, 1972;Funder, 2006Funder, , 2008Funder, , 2009Furr & Funder, 2004;Hogan, 2009; Kenny, Mohr, & Levesque, 2001; Magnusson, 1981a,b;Rauthmann et al., 2014;Rauthmann, 2012;Reis, 2008;Ross & Nisbett, 1991;Rozin, 2001;Swann & Seyle, 2005;Saucier, Bel-Bahar, & Fernandez, 2007;Sherman, Nave, & Funder, 2010 ten Berge & de Raad, 1999, 2002Wagerman & Funder, 2009;Yang, Read, & Miller, 2006. Principles of Situation Research 4This target article is an outgrowth of that meeting. Based on its wide-ranging and stimulating discussions, we set out our views on how to move the field of psychological situation research forward. After clarifying terminological issues, we formulate our ideas of the core principles of what situations are (and what they are not), how they operate, and how they may be studied, pursuing two broad aims. First, we hope to raise awareness and alert those interested in conducting research to thorny issues that have bedeviled situation research (and continue to do so). Second, we offer some principles for organizing, guiding, and unifying future research on situations. Third, an important purpose of ...

A new method for assessing situations is employed to examine the association between situational similarity, personality, and behavioral consistency across ecologically representative contexts. On 4 occasions across 4 weeks, 202 undergraduate participants (105 women, 97 men) wrote descriptions of a situation they had experienced the previous day. In addition, they rated its psychological features using the recently developed Riverside Situational Q-Sort (RSQ) Version 2.0 (Wagerman & Funder, 2009) and their behavior using the Riverside Behavioral Q-Sort (RBQ) Version 3.0 (Funder, Furr, & Colvin, 2000; Furr, Wagerman, & Funder, 2010). Independent judges also rated the situations using the RSQ, on the basis of the participants' written descriptions. Results indicated (a) participants' ratings of their behavior were impressively consistent across the 4 situations; (b) the 4 situations experienced by a single participant tended to be described more similarly to each other than to situations experienced by different participants; (c) situational similarity, especially from the individual's own point of view, strongly predicted behavioral consistency; and (d) personality characteristics predicted behavioral consistency even after controlling for situational similarity. Relatively consistent persons described themselves as ethically consistent, conservative, calm and relaxed, and low on neuroticism. These results imply that behavioral consistency in daily life stems from multiple sources, including situation selection and the distinctive influence of personality, and further suggest that tools for situational assessment such as the RSQ can have wide utility.

No abstract