On the concepts of character and personality: Correctly interpreting the statistical evidence putatively relevant to the disposition–situation debate

Abstract

Complementing Banicki's (2017) recent discussion of the conceptual and historical aspects of the distinction between theoretical notions of "character" and "personality," the present commentary is intended as a corrective to the long-standing misinterpretation of empirical findings generated by research psychologists putatively bearing on the theoretical assumption of temporal and transsituational stability in individuals' behavioral manifestations of their personal attributes, whether conceived as features of character or as traits of personality. It is hoped that this corrective can facilitate more fruitful future discussions of the issues that Banicki has raised.

A Deep Dig into the Feature of “Situational Selves” of Online Identity: A Review of the Concept/Theory of “Situational Selves”

“…Similarly, Fromm finds that there are "two thirds of the guards did not commit sadistic acts for personal kicks", which in fact show that "one cannot transform people so easily into sadists by providing them with the proper situation" [36]. Thus, from the individual level instead of the population level, in Lamiell's words: "all of the investigations thus far reported in the literature have found some evidence for relative stability/consistency at the level of the individual, and all of them have simultaneously found evidence for relative instability/inconsistency at the level of the individual" [37]. For participants who conformed to the role, the situation wins; for participants who show resistance, the character wins.…”

Psychology, conceptual confusion, and disquieting situationism: Response to Lamiell (2018)

“…Still, however, one would put forward a really strong thesis (and the one I will not defend) if one said that these statistical data are not at all indicative about the prospects for and optimal dealing with the patient being treated. 2 The second point it may be helpful to make in reference to Lamiell's (2018) response to my original paper concerns the particular stage of the situationism debate at stake. Lamiell, as already mentioned, deals mainly with Mischel (1968), which is exactly what is to be expected within the psychological context.…”

“…Let me first express my gratitude to James T. Lamiell (2018) for his reflections on my article (Banicki, 2017). I found it an honour to learn from his response that we share a lot with respect to the critical importance of conceptual issues in psychology.…”

“…What one may hope, at best, is that the latter is relatively impartial. That the view from nowhere is unattainable is not the whole story, though, and I am really grateful to James T. Lamiell (2018) for bringing my attention to that. The application of the phrase “individual differences,” and in a psychological journal at that, was indeed not only unfortunate, but also potentially confusing.…”

“…The second point it may be helpful to make in reference to Lamiell’s (2018) response to my original paper concerns the particular stage of the situationism debate at stake. Lamiell, as already mentioned, deals mainly with Mischel (1968), which is exactly what is to be expected within the psychological context.…”