The person‐situation debate: A critical multiplist perspective

Abstract

Cntical multiplism is an approach to question and method choice predicated on the ordy partial validity of most current social science practices In the first part of this paper, the approach is descnbed, and note is made of many of its advantages but also of two of its limitations Cntical multiphsm is then applied to the persOTi-situaticm debate The analysis reveals that major protagonists m the debate have oflen discussed diflFerent versions of what appears to be the same question, and they usually agree when they define the questions similarly The majOT real di£Ference concems predictions about the extent of cross-situational consistency m behaviors This entails at least two subquestions (1) how consistent is the same molecular behavior across situations? and (2) how crosssituationally stable are different molecular behaviors presumed to indicate the same latent trait? Data from Feake (1982) reported m Mischel and Beake (1982) are then reanalyzed For molecular behaviors withm the trait of conscientiousness, the central tendency ofthe cross-situational correlation is between 30 and 50, while for the nme different behaviors measured as most p-ototypical ofthe latent trait ofconscientiousness it ism the 30 to 40 range While these values are higher than those of Mischel and Beake (1982), comparable analyses of their ihendlmess data &iled to replicate the results for conscientiousness, cautioning us ncrt to overgeneralize estimates of cross-situational ccmsistency from any of the analyses currently available How can social science practice be justified in view of recent work by I^ilosc^ers, histonans, sociologists, and psychologists of science that appears to have undermined the basic premises of positivistically conceived social sci«ice (see Bemstein, 1983, Dreyfus, 1982, Habermas, aixl especially Daniel Ozier and an anonymous reviewer ^quests fw repints sluuld be sent to

Contrasts and Interactions Redux: Five Easy Pieces

“…251-252). We resonate to these statements as quite consistent with our own Understanding of the nature of knowledge and emphasis on methodological pluralism and theoretical ecumenism (e.g., Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991;Rosnow, 1981), a view that has been eloquently expressed by Campbell (1988); Fiske and Shweder (1986) ;Houts, Cook, and Shadish (1986); hlcGuire (1986); and other researchers.…”

A Generalizability Analysis of Subjective Personality Assessments in the Stumptail Macaque and the Zebra Finch

“…Although this consensus is still far from universal (cf., Ozer & Reise, 1994;Waller & Ben-Porath, 1987), no such broad convergence was evident at the inception of these studies. Furthermore, the focus of debate has shifted from the resolution of the socalled "person-situation debate" (e.g., Bem, 1972;Houts, Cook, & Shadish, 1986;Mischel, 1968Mischel, , 1973 to a variety of more current concerns (see Ozer & Reise, 1994, for an excellent review of contemporary thinking in the field). Although some convergence seems to have been reached over the ontological reality and practical utility of both personological and situational factors in the prediction of behavior (cf., Funder, 1983a, 199 1;Funder & Colvin, 1991;Mischel, 1983Mischel, , 1984Mischel & Peake, 1982), including the substantial influence of interactions between persons and situations (e.g., Caspi, Bem, & Elder, 1989), there has remained some residual controversy over the use of subjective assessments of personality (Funder, 1983b).…”

Patriarchal ideology and wife-assault: A meta-analytic review

“…These methdological differences raise the question of how to improve or expand our design and methodology in this research area. First, the need for multiple measures of theoretical constructs (Campbell and Fiske, 1959;Houts et al, 1986;Webb et aL, 1966) seems essential, both for measures of intimate violence and for its risk factors. The assessment of risk factors (e.g., personality trait or attitude) through the combined use of several methodologies (e.g., an actor's self-report measure, a partner's other-report measure of the actor, and, even, a naive observer's assessment of the actor) could clarify many of the conflicting findings in the literature.…”