Person-situation dynamics in educational contexts: A self- and other-rated experience sampling study of teachers’ states, traits, and situations

Abstract

The situations people find themselves in and how they experience them is fundamental to a host of life and work outcomes. However, most research has so far only relied on self-reports and is thus not able to disentangle different situation components. The present study therefore examined the dynamics between self- and other-rated situation characteristics, personality traits, and personality states in an educational setting. One hundred and seventy-three student teachers ( n = 2244–2261 observations) and 94 supervisors ( n = 1110–1122 observations) participated in a 13- or 14-day experience sampling study during student teachers’ internships and rated situations and teachers’ personality states twice daily. Answering three research questions yielded that (1) self-rated traits were mostly not associated with self- or supervisor-rated situation characteristics; (2) self- and supervisor-rated situation characteristics predicted self- and supervisor-rated personality state expressions (although effects were largest for same-rater associations); and (3) there were no interaction effects of traits and situation characteristics on personality state expressions. These results have important theoretical and applied implications as they advance our understanding of person-situation dynamics in an applied setting and suggest that associations between situations and personality states are not solely attributable to common rater effects.

Individual differences in contingencies between situation characteristics and personality states.

“…These findings suggest a low convergence between two conceptualizations of personality traits (i.e., average tendencies vs. contingencies), as measured here. This is in line with previous empirical work suggesting the scarcity of interaction effects with this kind of data (e.g., Abrahams et al, 2021; Sherman et al, 2015; Sherman & Pashler, 2019; Wilt & Revelle, 2019; cf. Breil et al, 2019; Quintus et al, 2021).…”

“…These findings on average contingencies were replicated by further studies (e.g., Abrahams et al, 2021;Horstmann et al, 2021a;Quintus et al, 2021). Some studies reported associations between individual differences in contingencies and personality trait variables (i.e., crosslevel interactions, e.g., Breil et al, 2019;Quintus et al, 2021), but others reported few significant interaction effects (e.g., Abrahams et al, 2021;Sherman et al, 2015). Zooming in on specific contingencies in the work context, Beckmann et al (2021) were among the first to examine the stability of individual differences in situational contingencies, reporting some long-term stability of task-contingent Conscientiousness and Neuroticism.…”

“…Sherman et al (2015) reported substantial fixed effects of DIAMONDS situation characteristics in the prediction of personality states, with a focus on theoretically expected effects. These findings on average contingencies were replicated by further studies (e.g., Abrahams et al, 2021; Horstmann et al, 2021a; Quintus et al, 2021). Some studies reported associations between individual differences in contingencies and personality trait variables (i.e., cross-level interactions, e.g., Breil et al, 2019; Quintus et al, 2021), but others reported few significant interaction effects (e.g., Abrahams et al, 2021; Sherman et al, 2015).…”

“…A preliminary investigation of this proposition based on other-reported situation characteristics as assessed in Studies 4 and 5 did not result in more pronounced interaction effects, however. Nevertheless, additional data sources (e.g., ratings from juxta situm raters: Abrahams et al, 2021; ratings from ex situ raters: Breil et al, 2019; smartphone-sensed situational information: Harari et al, 2015) and study designs (e.g., experimental presentation of situational stimuli) should be explored more extensively. Moreover, contingencies could be examined with other types of situational information (e.g., specific situational cues rather than characteristics).…”

“…Moreover, research on contingencies has been conducted in various applied areas of psychology. For instance, task-contingent Conscientiousness has been examined in the work context (e.g., Minbashian et al, 2010; Wood et al, 2019); clinical research has examined the potential role of individual differences in contingencies for psychopathology (e.g., Kaurin et al, 2020; Miskewicz et al, 2015; Sharpe et al, 2021); and educational research has examined situational contingencies in the classroom (e.g., Abrahams et al, 2021; Zhang et al, 2022).…”