Refining fit: Conceptual and methodological challenges

Abstract

In spite of its central place, the concept of person-environment fit has received relatively little critical attention in community psychology. A closer look at this seemingly simple concept raises a number of questions and challenges for researchers. These challenges include problems associated with the complexity and multidimensionality of the fit construct; contamination of person and environment instruments in the measurement o f fit; the need for integration o f fit research with more sophisticated theoretical perspectives; and the need for integration o f fit research with other concepts and methods in community psychology. In response to these challenges, several recommendations are made to spur further progress in studies of personenvironment transactions. These recommendations include the development of a general multisystems measure of person-environment fit, the use of multidimensional outcome criteria, specification of the nature of the fit studied, and examination of the unique contributions of person, environment, and fit to behavioral predictions.

A Two‐Dimensional Person‐Environment Fit Analysis of the Performance, Effort and Satisfaction of Research Scientists

“…Therefore, it is suggested that researchers who use P-E fit theory should adopt a more analytical view of fitlmisfit in future research. At the theoretical level this is being recognized more and more as the papers by Brousseau (1983), Pargament (1986) and Sims and Veres (1987) show. This call for increased sophistication in the use of the P-E fit model in empirical research is not well attended to however.…”

“…In 1983 Brousseau focused particularly on job-person fit and called for the application of a dynamic model, which recognized that, 'efforts t o create work systems capable of sustaining good job-person matching over long periods of time inevitably must grapple with developmental issues' (p. 39). Pargament (1986), writing from the perspective of community psychology, offered 12 recommendations to P-E Fit researchers, and threw down the following challenge:…”

The General Environment Fit Scale: A Factor Analysis and Test of Convergent Construct Validity

“…The concept has its roots in Parsons’ (1909) assertion that individuals varied in their congruence with different occupations, as well as Kurt Lewin’s field theory (1939), which posited that behavior is a function of both persons their environment. Pargament (1986) and Moos (1987) developed much of the theoretical and empirical P-E fit community literature, but the majority of P-E fit theory and empirical work has been conducted by industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology and business management, which have contributed a large body of literature on the concept (Ostroff & Judge, 2007). Within this literature, P-E fit has been measured either directly, by explicitly asking individuals how well they fit with an environment or indirectly, by measuring both the individual and the environment (Kristof, 1996).…”

“…The concept has its roots in Parsons' (1909) assertion that individuals varied in their congruence with different occupations, as well as Lewin's field theory (1939), which posited that behavior is a function of both persons and their environments. Pargament (1986) and Moos (1987) developed much of the theoretical and empirical P-E fit community literature, but the majority of P-E fit theory development and empirical research has been conducted by scientists in the industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology and business management fields. These fields have contributed a large body of literature on the concept (Ostroff and Judge 2007).…”

A Content Analysis Scaling Method for the Measurement of Person-Environment Incongruence

“…Some researchers have suggested the need for idiographic methods of research which can account for individual motivation and subjective experience of incongruence (Pargament, 1986;Van Harrison, 1978). Van Harrison suggests that accurate measurement of P-E fit should reflect the values and goals of the individual.…”