Individual differences in situation–behavior profiles: A triple typology model.

Vansteelandt, Kristof; Mechelen, Iven Van

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.751

Cited by 76 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hierarchical classes models have proved their usefulness in a variety of research domains (e.g., De Boeck & Van Mechelen, 1990;Reid & Deaux, 1996;S. Rosenberg, 1989), including contextualised personality psychology (Vansteelandt & Van Mechelen, 1998, 2006). In the current study, the data available from the imagery task provide information on the appraisal and anger reactions to a set of situations by a large group of participants.…”

Section: Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual differences in patterns of appraisal and anger experience

Kuppens

Mechelen

Smits

et al. 2007

Cognition & Emotion

Self Cite

175

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present study was to identify and account for individual differences in the contextual experience of anger and its appraisals and in the associations between both. Participants (N 0/832) engaged in a directed imagery task of descriptions of unpleasant situations and reported on their appraisal and anger experience. Additionally, they filled out several dispositional questionnaires. The results demonstrated that at the basis of the experience of anger lies an externally induced disadvantage, which for many people elicits frustration. For some individuals, the latter is sufficient for becoming angered. Yet, for others, the thwarting has to be characterised by norm violation and has to be appraised as unfair and deliberate in order for them to experience anger. Individuals also differed as to whether threat to self-esteem was experienced along with frustration in situations that involved negative evaluative self-relevant information. Combined, the findings demonstrated that anger can occur in combination with different patterns of appraisals, varying as a function of situation and person characteristics.

show abstract

Section: Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual differences in patterns of appraisal and anger experience

Kuppens

Mechelen

Smits

et al. 2007

Cognition & Emotion

Self Cite

175

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As was the case for the INDCLAS model (see Figure 10), the hierarchy of situation classes takes the form of a total order, which may be conceived as a quantitative dimension (Gati & Tversky, 1982). In line with Vansteelandt and Van Mechelen (1998), this dimension can be interpreted as a frustration dimension with class $1 containing mildly frustrating situations (e.g., someone pushes ahead of you in a ticket line) and class $2 strongly frustrating situations (e.g., incessant noise when you are studying). The latter interpretation of the situation hierarchy was further validated by calculating the Spearman rank correlation between the position of the $1 and $2 situations on the quantitative dimension and external expert judgements on those situations: The strongly frustrating situations are characterized by a longer duration of the frustration (r ----.85, p < .0001), more severe consequences (r ----.75, p < .0001), a more external causal locus (r = .78, p < .0001) and a more ego-threatening character (r = .45, p = .043) than the mildly frustrating situations.…”

Section: Illustrative Applicationmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…One may conclude that the Tucker3-HICLAS model gives an equally well fitting but more parsimonious description of Vansteelandt and Van Mechelen's (1998) …”

Section: Illustrative Applicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Figure 8 shows the overall graphical representation of the (2,3,2) model and Figure 9 represents the person hierarchy, with the number of persons in each class indicated between parentheses; note that the situations, responses and persons with a zero bundle pattern have not been included in the representation and that the situations have been indicated by the key words presented in Table 9. For clarity's sake, the overall graphical representation of Vansteelandt and Van Mechelen's (1998) INDCLAS model of rank 3 is provided in Figure 10. As was the case for the INDCLAS model (see Figure 10), the hierarchy of situation classes takes the form of a total order, which may be conceived as a quantitative dimension (Gati & Tversky, 1982).…”

Section: Illustrative Applicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This study concerns individual differences in selfreported hostile behavior in frustrating situations (Vansteelandt & Van Mechelen, 1998). The data were situation by behavior by person data, which were originally analyzed by means of the INDCLAS algorithm.…”

Section: Illustrative Applicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Tucker3 hierarchical classes analysis

2003

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a new" model for binary three-way three-mode data, called Tucker3 hierarchical classes model (Tucker3-HICLAS). This new' model generalizes Leenen, Van Mechelen, De Boeck, and Rosenberg's (1999) individual differences hierarchical classes mcxtel (INDCLAS). Like the INDCLAS model, the Tucker3-HICLAS model includes a hierarchical classification of the elements of each mode, and a linking structure among the three hierarchies. Unlike INDCLAS, Tucker3-HICLAS (a) does not restrict the hierarchical classifications of the three modes to have the same rank, and (b) allows for more complex linking structures among the thi'ee hierarchies. An algorithm to fit the Tucker3-HICLAS model is described and evaluated in an extensive simulation study. An application of the model to hostility data is discussed.

show abstract

Editorial: personality and situations

Mechelen¹,

Raad²

1999

Eur. J. Pers.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the last few decades the personality domain has witnessed several major controversies, including the person±situation debate and the debates on accurate re¯ection versus systematic distortion, on nomothetic versus idiographic approaches, on nature±nurture, etc. Within these controversies several sharp contrasts and pendulum movements have stood out.In particular, regarding the person±situation debate, during the late sixties global personality traits have been subjected to severe criticisms as being`excessively crude, gross units to encompass adequately the extraordinary complexity and subtlety of the discriminations that people constantly make' (Mischel, 1968, p. 301). In contrast with this, during the eighties, there was a clear renaissance of personality traits, culminating in an emerging consensus within a broad group of trait psychologists on the major dimensions underlying personality judgments within lexical approaches to personality:`Once upon a time, we had no personalities (Mischel, 1968). (. . .) Is it not exciting to see their return?' (Goldberg, 1993). During the sixties and early seventies, several commentators pointed to the low cross-situational consistency of traitrelevant behaviour, as indexed by correlations across persons between scores of objectively recorded behaviours in two dierent situations (optionally after aggregation of the scores across dierent observers, dierent time points, and dierent acts belonging to the same behaviour category). Related to the former, researchers have amply documented the importance of person by situation interactions in behavioural data. In contrast, from the late seventies on, it has been replied that behaviour scores do display high stabilities (in terms of correlations across persons), if ®rst an appropriate aggregation across situations is performed; the latter has been argued to be necessary to wash out measurement error or unreliability (Epstein, 1979).From the nineties on, however, a new movement can be discerned: at the turn of the millennium, from quite dierent angles, calls can be heard for reconciliation, synthesis, and integration. As such, Magnusson and ToÈ restad in their 1993 Annual Review chapter advocated the construction of a general theoretical framework for personality research, within a dynamic, holistic view of personality. Revelle, from his side, concludes his 1995 Annual Review chapter with the announcement that`what the next decade promises is an integration of (. . .) many separate foci' ( p. 321). Epstein (1996) simply states that`personality psychology should be integrative ' ( p. 435), whereas Funder (1996) and the guest editors of a special issue of the Journal of Research in Personality are at the outlook on the beach for the`Big One', that is, a

show abstract

Individual differences in situation–behavior profiles: A triple typology model.

Cited by 76 publications

References 53 publications

Individual differences in patterns of appraisal and anger experience

Individual differences in patterns of appraisal and anger experience

Tucker3 hierarchical classes analysis

Editorial: personality and situations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About