Debate Person vs. Situation Essay

Various psychologists have taken different views on whether your behavior is determined by something in you, such as your personality, or by the situation you are in. Which is the greater determinant of behavior? Over the centuries these controversial questions have led researchers to paradoxical ideas and theories, and even today it is very difficult to get a straightforward answer. Some theorists believe that the individual’s behavior can be best explained by the situation and its circumstances. What a person does completely depends on the situation he or she is involved in; it immediately provides a consistent guide and determines the individual’s actions. Other researchers state that personality causes the individual’s behavior no matter what the situation is. The personality overtops the immediate situation and moment to determine the individual’s further actions. The personality vs. situation debate has been a controversial issue since the late 1960s. Unfortunately, researchers lack a complex approach, nature-nurture in-depth analysis, and both sides’ interactions to understand the personality-situation debate and find common ground. And even today further research is needed.

For many decades, study after study has shown different conclusions that are based on common findings. Researchers often make errors analyzing single items of behavior; they do not fully aggregate behaviors over instances and other occasions. In their studies, researchers are unable to provide evidence for stable response dispositions. Mischel and Peake (1982) provide a detailed analysis where the researchers examine a number of items on many occasions and reveal that in all cases the relationship between the behavioral items among individuals resulted in the implementation of inappropriate strategies or in the misinterpretation of the study data. The study examines multiple items where “each person’s behavior shows some consistency, some discriminativeness, some continuity, some change.” (Mischel & Peake, 1982, p. 753) But despite in-depth examination, “this tempting stance has nontrivial consequences, diverting attention from the serious questions that have been raised throughout the debate by evidence of unexpected discriminativeness in behavior as a function of context and the psychological situation.” (Mischel & Peake, 1982, p. 753) Researchers examined an extensive assessment of conscientiousness in college students, the Bem-Funder (1978) template matching approach, the Bern-Allen (1974) moderator variable approach, and finally, a cognitive prototype approach. But in their study, Mischel and Peake (1982) experienced a number of problems, such as inappropriate methods for item selection and retention, an ineffective approach to reliability, and an inability to reveal the importance of attending to relationships among aggregates of items. Unfortunately, their study did not clarify the question, and researchers did not examine both sides of this nature-nurture debate.  Mischel and Peake (1982) conclude that “the debate has been difficult to resolve not only because the phenomena are exceedingly complex but because the data available are often readily misread and the interpretations far exceed their source.” (p. 753)

Epstein (1983) in his reply to Mischel’s (1982) study clarifies the situation and explains both sides of the personality vs. situation debate. Epstein (1983) points out that over the years there has been much confusion in the debate because both the proponents of “situational influence” and the supporters of “personality influence” are right in their views and ideas. Both of them provide effective evidence and facts that prove their views regarding determinants of human behavior. According to Epstein (1983), the personality-situation debate is a long-lasting issue, not only because of the inability to find common ground or come to a common conclusion but also because “each group believes that because it is right, the other group must be wrong.” (p. 183). Epstein (1983) explains the personality-situation debate paradox and provides three statements that can be all effective and convincing, such as “(a) behavior is situationally specific; (b) behavior is cross-situationally general; and (c) there are stable, broad response dispositions, or traits.” (p. 183)

Analyzing different studies, I consider both sides are right in their positions regarding personality-situation issues, and there is some truth in each study. Some theorists challenged the debate stating that behavior is determined only by an individual’s personality and characteristics styles. Other studies revealed that the individual’s behavior from situation to the situation was variable and determined by the situation and its circumstances. For example, Epstein (1983) in his reply to Mischel’s and Peake’s (1982) study shows that the proponents of “situation influence” distorted his views and data regarding “the stability and generality of behavior and misrepresented the issue” (p. 179), and “maintain a view that has been a continuous source of confusion in the long history of the person-situation debate.” (p. 179) Epstein (1983) is more convincing in his arguments because he does not challenge the assumptions of other researchers and tries to examine both sides of the debate. In contrast, “Mischel has consistently defended his position that there is little consistency in behavior and has called for the abandonment of the trait position.” (Epstein, 1983, p. 179) Mischel (1982) pointed out that the role of personality is not so important because the correlation between personality and behavior is very small. Mischel and Peake (1982) analyzed a number of research literature but their study lacked a complex approach and in-depth analysis. On the whole, behavior is unique in its nature, and it cannot depend only on the situation itself. In order to solve these long-lasting debates, researchers should study behavior not only by analyzing personality influence but also by how people react to the situation, its circumstances, and their environments. The complex approach and interactions of both sides are crucially important to clarify the further debate.    

References:

Epstein, S. (1983) The stability of confusion: A reply to Mischel and Peake. Psychological Review, 90, 179-184.

Mischel, W., & Peake, P.K. (1982) Beyond deja vu in the search for cross-situational consistency. Psychological Review, 89, 730.