CONSISTENCY OF CONSISTENCY OF PERSONALITYPERSONALITY(Consistency Paradox)(Consistency Paradox)

by Katie Jungby Katie Jung(KyungHee Graduate School of International Legal Affairs)(KyungHee Graduate School of International Legal Affairs)

Oct. 12, 2004Oct. 12, 2004

What is Personality?What is Personality?

Definition of PersonalityDefinition of Personality

1. The complex of set psychological qualities 1. The complex of set psychological qualities that influence a person’s characteristic patterns that influence a person’s characteristic patterns of behavior across different situations and of behavior across different situations and time. time.

Focal issue: How do personality and situational Focal issue: How do personality and situational influences combine to lead to behavior?influences combine to lead to behavior?

Cross-Situational ConsistencyCross-Situational Consistency

Consistency paradoxConsistency paradoxWhile personality ratings are consistent across time and observer, While personality ratings are consistent across time and observer, behavioral ratings across situation are not very consistentbehavioral ratings across situation are not very consistent

Issue: Specific behavioral traits vary by the nature of Issue: Specific behavioral traits vary by the nature of the situation.the situation.

Psychological features of a situation are relevant to Psychological features of a situation are relevant to specific traitsspecific traits

e.g. behavior in threatening situations will be e.g. behavior in threatening situations will be associated with harm avoidance or anxiety traits.associated with harm avoidance or anxiety traits.

Consistency ParadoxConsistency Paradox

The paradox is that although lay people The paradox is that although lay people believe that behavior is consistent across believe that behavior is consistent across situation, psychologists find it difficult to situation, psychologists find it difficult to demonstrate. Two possible reasons.demonstrate. Two possible reasons.

1) lay people are wrong and people are 1) lay people are wrong and people are inconsistentinconsistent

2) psychologists have been ineffective in 2) psychologists have been ineffective in demonstrating consistencydemonstrating consistency

Lay people are wrongLay people are wrong

Physical appearance, voice, situations make us Physical appearance, voice, situations make us see a person as more similar than they aresee a person as more similar than they are

Dispositional attribution error: tendency to Dispositional attribution error: tendency to attribute behavior to a person’s character attribute behavior to a person’s character rather than situation.rather than situation.

Experimental demonstrations: Jones and Experimental demonstrations: Jones and Harris(1967), Gilbert and Jones (1986), Ross Harris(1967), Gilbert and Jones (1986), Ross et al (1977)et al (1977)

Psychologists not measuring not Psychologists not measuring not properlyproperly

Allport argument that different behaviors may Allport argument that different behaviors may be internally consistent.be internally consistent.

Block criticizes the review of Mischel as Block criticizes the review of Mischel as biased and focusing on poor studiesbiased and focusing on poor studies

Epstein and Rushton and reliabilityEpstein and Rushton and reliability Mischel and Peake’s conscientiousness study Mischel and Peake’s conscientiousness study

and rely to reliability criticismand rely to reliability criticism

Psychologists not measuring not Psychologists not measuring not properlyproperly

Beem and Allen (1974) and moderator Beem and Allen (1974) and moderator variablesvariables

Snyder (1987) and self-monitoring, high self Snyder (1987) and self-monitoring, high self monitors more likely to show behavioral monitors more likely to show behavioral inconsistency.inconsistency.

Funder and 0.4 is not bad, comparison with Funder and 0.4 is not bad, comparison with situational effects.situational effects.

Research MethodsResearch Methods

Longitudinal v. Cross sectional studiesLongitudinal v. Cross sectional studies a. Longitudinal: Same group followed over timea. Longitudinal: Same group followed over time b. Cross-sectional: Different groups, different b. Cross-sectional: Different groups, different

ages, tested onceages, tested once

( One of basic issues in Developmental ( One of basic issues in Developmental Psychology)Psychology)

The Cross-Sectional methodThe Cross-Sectional method

Definition by Baltes (1968): “Samples of Definition by Baltes (1968): “Samples of different ages are observed on the same different ages are observed on the same dependent variable once at the same time of dependent variable once at the same time of measurement” (two or more cohorts are tested measurement” (two or more cohorts are tested at one time to see if differences exist across at one time to see if differences exist across ages)ages)

Age differences may be confounded with Age differences may be confounded with differences in generations or cohorts.differences in generations or cohorts.

The Cross-Sectional methodThe Cross-Sectional method

Observes people of different ages at one point in timeObserves people of different ages at one point in time Compares performances of different age groupsCompares performances of different age groups

(+) Tells how performances changes (develops) with age(+) Tells how performances changes (develops) with age (+) Quick & inexpensive, points out developmental trends(+) Quick & inexpensive, points out developmental trends (-) Provides no information about change over time in (-) Provides no information about change over time in

individualsindividuals (-) Confounded by cohort effects(-) Confounded by cohort effects

Longitudinal methodLongitudinal method

Defined by Baltes : “One sample is observed Defined by Baltes : “One sample is observed several times on the same dependent variable several times on the same dependent variable at different age levels, and therefore by at different age levels, and therefore by definition at different times of measurement”definition at different times of measurement” One group of individuals within cohort is tested at One group of individuals within cohort is tested at

least twice over time.least twice over time. Cook and Campbell (1979) would define this Cook and Campbell (1979) would define this

method as time-series designmethod as time-series design

Longitudinal methodLongitudinal method

Observe people of one age group over timeObserve people of one age group over time Watch a single set of people ‘grow’Watch a single set of people ‘grow’ Describes age changesDescribes age changes

(+) can link early behavior to later behavior(+) can link early behavior to later behavior (+) individual differences in aging (how individuals are (+) individual differences in aging (how individuals are

alike & how they are different in the way they develop or alike & how they are different in the way they develop or age)age)

(-)May actually be time or measurements (historical (-)May actually be time or measurements (historical effects)effects)

(-) Time consuming, expensive, subjects ‘drop out’, retest (-) Time consuming, expensive, subjects ‘drop out’, retest effectseffects