Sources of variance in behavioral measures of honesty in temptation situations: Methodological analyses.

Nelsen, Edward A.; Grinder, Robert E.; Mutterer, Marcia L.

doi:10.1037/h0027375

Cited by 46 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1). Finally, the correlational approach is consistent with the major empirical assaults on the cross-situational consistency assumption (for instance, Aronfreed, 1961;Bem and Allen, 1974;Eberts and Lepper, 1975;Goldberg, 1954;Hartshorne and May, 1928;Linton, 1955;Mischel, 1968;Nelsen, Grinder, and Mutterer, 1969), thus facilitating comparisons with these other studies. For these reasons and others8 the correlational approach was employed in this study.…”

Section: A Direct Testmentioning

confidence: 75%

The Cross-Situational Consistency of Communicative Behaviors

Hewes

Haight

1979

Communication Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cappella for their ideas and criticisms.Personality traits are widely employed as antecedent variables in the explanation of communicative behaviors. This study explored the legitimacy of the use of traits by focusing on the conceptual and empirical justification for one assumption of the trait approach: "cross-situational consistency. " This assumption was not supported for the traits of "reticence" or 'predisposition toward verbal behavior." Evidence also raised questions concerning the general validity of this assumption for other, familiar trait variables. Alternative conceptualizations of the trait/behavior relationship were reviewed and briefly critiqued.The purported link between personality and communication behaviors has been the focus of increasing amounts of empirical investigation in the field of communication. Personality variables such as Machiavellianism, selfconcept, introversion, anomie, dogmatism, and anxiety have all been considered as antecedents of an array of communicative acts. Most recently communication scholars have developed a set of personality variables uniquely derived from within our field. Exemplifying this trend are at

show abstract

Section: A Direct Testmentioning

confidence: 75%

The Cross-Situational Consistency of Communicative Behaviors

Hewes

Haight

1979

Communication Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Over time, an overwhelming mass of data has accumulated, and it shows that what was true of the honesty of schoolchildren is true of other behaviors in other contexts too (e.g., Bowers, 1973;Dudycha, 1936;Ekehammar, 1974;Endler, Hunt, & Rosenstein, 1962;Fiedler, 1971;Fiske, 1971, pp. 180-191, Chapter 8;Mischel, 1976; Moos, 1970;Nelsen, Grinder, & Mutterer, 1969;Newcomb, 1929;Trickett & Moos, 1970). Further, even when there are some significant transsituational correlations between behaviors, they are so low (often around .30) that their practical value is severely limited (Mischel, 1968, p. 38).…”

Section: How Do Traits Interact? a Third Point Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Cognitive Foundations of Personality Traits

Kreitler¹,

Kreitler²

1990

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Within this view, commonly referred to as the "character education approach," morality is defined in terms of the norms of the culture and its central social and moral institutions, and consists of abiding by the values and traditions of the society. Adherents to this view typically align morality with character traits or habits deemed generally to be important (and often identified as such in research on moral development and behavior), such as honesty, self-control, responsibility, loyalty, courage, and obedience (e.g., Hartshorne & May, 1928-1930Havighurst & Taba, 1949;Nelsen, Grinder, & Mutterer, 1969). Accordingly, moral development is construed broadly within this approach to include concepts of the self, character, motivation, goals, values, identity, personal growth, selfesteem, and achievement, among others (e.g., Campbell & Christopher, 1996).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

The Development of Reasoning about the Teaching of Values in School and Family Contexts

Prencipe

Helwig

2002

Child Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated children's, adolescents', and young adults' reasoning about the teaching of a variety of values in the school and family contexts. One-hundred and sixty participants in four age groups (8-, 10-, and 13-year-olds, and college students) evaluated acts involving the teaching of values and laws that regulate the teaching of these values. Both the valence (positive or negative) of values and the context in which they were presented (school, family) were systematically varied. Results showed that a variety of factors were considered in evaluating the teaching of values, including context, the valence of the value, and the type of value being taught. Participants' reasoning about values education was found to be multifaceted and included distinctions between moral values that reflect justice and rights, and values that reflect other forms of personality traits and social values. The findings suggest that conceptions of values education may be better understood within models of social reasoning that draw distinctions between types of values (e.g., moral and other values) and account for the increasing capacity to differentiate social contexts and spheres of legitimate governmental regulation with development.

show abstract

Sources of variance in behavioral measures of honesty in temptation situations: Methodological analyses.

Cited by 46 publications

References 15 publications

The Cross-Situational Consistency of Communicative Behaviors

The Cross-Situational Consistency of Communicative Behaviors

The Cognitive Foundations of Personality Traits

The Development of Reasoning about the Teaching of Values in School and Family Contexts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About