Toward an interactional psychology of personality.

Endler, Norman S.; Magnusson, David

doi:10.1037/0033-2909.83.5.956

Cited by 714 publications

(504 citation statements)

References 92 publications

(89 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

463

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Situations differ in the extent to which they provide clear and salient cues to appropriate action. From the early proposals of Lewin to more recent arguments of interactionism (Endler & Magnusson, 1976;Magnusson & Endler, 1977), there has been a recognition that characteristics of a situation have more than trivial influence on behavior At a general level, situations can be characterized as strong or weak (cf. Mis-4 has proposed four moderator variables that partially overlap with those that we have identified.…”

Section: Characteristics Of the Expectancymentioning

confidence: 99%

Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior.

Deaux¹,

Major²

1987

Psychological Review

1,057

802

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A model that describes conditions influencing the display of gender-related behavior is presented as a supplement to existent models of sex differences. Whereas many previous models stress the importance of distal factors, our model emphasizes the degree to which gender-related behavior is variable, proximally caused, and context dependent. More specifically, we propose that gender-related behaviore are influenced by the expectations of perceivers, self-systems of the target, and situational cues. This model of gender-related behavior builds on theory and data in the areas of (a) expectancy confirmation processes and (b) self-verification and self-presentation strategies. Support for the model is presented, and suggestions are offered for its future development.Are men and women different, and if so, why? These seemingly simple questions have proved remarkably resistant to satisfactory answers, despite a long tradition of attempts. Investigators of some eras have emphasized differences between women and men, whereas those of other eras have argued for the essential similarity of the sexes. For example, in recent years one can observe a minimization of sex differences in the benchmark work of Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) and a reendorsement of sex differences in the subsequent work of Gilligan (1982), Eagly (1987), and others. Proponents of both views have had problems. Those who predict stable sex differences have had trouble accounting for the often limited ability of sex to predict behavior and for a variability that sometimes appears random.The order of authorship for this article was determined alphabetically and hence is arbitrary. The contributions of both authors are equivalent and inseparable.Portions of this article were developed while Kay Deaux was a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, where support was provided in part by the John D. and Catherine T. McArthur Foundation. Additional support was provided by Grants BNS-8217313 and BNS-8604993 from the National Science Foundation to Kay Deaux.Many people have contributed to our thinking in this article. A preliminary version of the model was presented at the Nags Head Conference on Sex and Gender in May 198S, and we thank the members of that conference for their feedback. The members of the Self, Cognition, and Affect Project at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences provided valuable input and a stimulating context. In addition, we thank the following people for their comments on earlier versions of this article: Richard Ashmore, Nyla Branscombe, Jennifer Crocker, John Darley, Frances Del Boca, Alice Eagly, Russ Fazio, Sam Glucksberg, Tory Higgins, Bill Martin, and Janet Spence.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kay Deaux, who is now at City University of New York, Graduate Center, Box 325, 33 West 42 Street, New York, New York 10036-8099 or to Brenda Major, Department of Psychology, Park Hall, State University of New York at Buffalo, Amherst, New York 14260.Those who argue that ...

show abstract

Section: Characteristics Of the Expectancymentioning

confidence: 99%

Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior.

Deaux¹,

Major²

1987

Psychological Review

1,057

802

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Situational specificity is presumed to be due in part to unknown differences in the measurement (latent structure) models for job performance and in job requirements over studies (situations) (Ghiselli, 1966(Ghiselli, , 1973 Bowers, 1973;Ekehammer, 1974;Endler & Magnusson, 1976;Lewin, 1938;Lichtman & Hunt, 1971;Pervin, 1968 We will therefore proceed to implement a situational specificity "what if" scenario based on the assumption that a unique population validity underlies each situation (study). We begin with the psychometric analogy employed by Hunter, Schmidt, and Jackson (1982) to establish a statistical foundation for VG analysis.…”

Section: Alternative Explanationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A note on validity generalization procedures.

James¹,

Demaree²,

Mulaik³

1986

Journal of Applied Psychology

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

generalization procedures are reviewed and found to be subject to the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. Alternative models may explain variation in validity coefficients as well as the cross-situational consistency model espoused by many users of the validity generalization approach. Moreover, some of the assumptions that form the statistical foundation of validity generalization work are open to question. Use of Fisher 2 transformations in validity generalization analyses removes most of these problems and will usually produce more conservative estimates of the degree to which sampling error may account for variability in correlations.The hypothesis that validities are "situationally specific" in the context of personnel research has been addressed in a number of recent studies and reviews (cf.

show abstract

“…In addition, context and leaders can be viewed from an interactionist perspective (i.e., context and leaders reciprocally influence each other) [77]. In other words, context constrains which behaviors are considered prototypical [78,79].…”

Section: Context and Leadership Stylesmentioning

confidence: 99%