The situations people find themselves in and how they experience them is fundamental to a host of life and work outcomes. However, most research has so far only relied on self-reports and is thus not able to disentangle different situation components. The present study therefore examined the dynamics between self- and other-rated situation characteristics, personality traits, and personality states in an educational setting. One hundred and seventy-three student teachers (n = 2244–2261 observations) and 94 supervisors (n = 1110–1122 observations) participated in a 13- or 14-day experience sampling study during student teachers’ internships and rated situations and teachers’ personality states twice daily. Answering three research questions yielded that (1) self-rated traits were mostly not associated with self- or supervisor-rated situation characteristics; (2) self- and supervisor-rated situation characteristics predicted self- and supervisor-rated personality state expressions (although effects were largest for same-rater associations); and (3) there were no interaction effects of traits and situation characteristics on personality state expressions. These results have important theoretical and applied implications as they advance our understanding of person-situation dynamics in an applied setting and suggest that associations between situations and personality states are not solely attributable to common rater effects.
ArslanR. C.WaltherM. P.TataC. S. (2020).
formr: A study framework allowing for automated feedback generation and complex longitudinal experience-sampling studies using R. Behavior Research Methods,
52(1), 376–387. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01236-y
2.
BaranskiE.GrayJ.MorseP.DunlopW. (2020).
From desire to development? A multi-sample, idiographic examination of volitional personality change. Journal of Research in Personality,
85, 103910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.103910
3.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015).
Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software,
67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
BreilS. M.GeukesK.WilsonR. E.NestlerS.VazireS.BackM. D. (2019).
Zooming into real-life extraversion – How personality and situation shape sociability in social interactions. Collabra: Psychology,
5(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.170
6.
ChoY.ShimS. S. (2013).
Predicting teachers' achievement goals for teaching: The role of perceived school goal structure and teachers' sense of efficacy.Teaching and Teacher Education,
32, 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.12.003
7.
DalalR. S.AlaybekB.LievensF. (2020).
Within-person job performance variability over short timeframes: Theory, empirical research, and practice.Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,
7(1), 421–449. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045350
8.
de RaadB. (2004). Situations that matter to personality. In A. Eliasz, S. E. Hampson & B. d. Raad (Eds), Advances in personality psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 179–204). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203000953
9.
de RaadB.Doddema-WinsemiusM. (2006). De Big 5 persoonlijkheidsfactoren. Uitgeverij Nieuwezijds.
10.
DenissenJ. J.GeenenR.van AkenM. A.GoslingS. D.PotterJ. (2008).
Development and validation of a Dutch translation of the Big Five Inventory (BFI). Journal of Personality Assessment,
90(2), 152–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701845229
11.
DeYoungC. G. (2015). Openness/intellect: A dimension of personality reflecting cognitive exploration. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, M. L. Cooper & R. J. Larsen (Eds), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Volume 4: Personality processes and individual differences (pp. 369–399). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14343-017
12.
EdwardsJ. A.TempletonA. (2005).
The structure of perceived qualities of situations. European Journal of Social Psychology,
35(6), 705–723. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.271
13.
FinniganK. M.VazireS. (2018).
The incremental validity of average state self-reports over global self-reports of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
115(2), 321–337. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000136
FleesonW.LawM. K. (2015).
Trait enactments as density distributions: The role of actors, situations, and observers in explaining stability and variability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
109(6), 1090–1104. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039517
16.
FunderD. (2016).
Taking situations seriously: The Situation Construal Model and the Riverside Situational Q-sort. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
25(3), 203–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416635552
17.
FurrR. M.FunderD. (2018). Persons, situations, and person-situation interactions. In O. P. John & R. W. Robins (Eds), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (4th ed.). Guilford.
18.
GeiserC.LitsonK.BishopJ.KellerB. T.BurnsG. L.ServeraM.ShiffmanS. (2015).
Analyzing person, situation and person x situation interaction effects: Latent state-trait models for the combination of random and fixed situations. Psychological Methods,
20(2), 165–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000026
19.
GeldhofG. J.PreacherK. J.ZyphurM. J. (2014).
Reliability estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework. Psychological Methods,
19(1), 72–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032138
20.
GreenJ. P.DalalR. S.SwigartK. L.BleibergM. A.WallaceD. M.HargroveA. K. (2018).
Personality consistency and situational influences on behavior. Journal of Management,
45(8), 3204–3234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318781950
HongR. Y.ChanW. Y.LimJ. Y. R. (2020).
Pathological personality traits and the experience of daily situations. Clinical Psychological Science,
8(2), 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702619894902
23.
HorstmannK. T. (2020). Experience sampling and daily diary studies: Basic concepts, designs, and challenges. In J. F. Rauthmann (Ed.), The handbook of personality dynamics and processes. Academic Press.
24.
HorstmannK. T.RauthmannJ. F. (in preparation). How many states make a trait? A comprehensive meta-analysis of experience sampling studies. https://osf.io/jvqu3/
25.
HorstmannK. T.RauthmannJ. F.ShermanR. A. (2018). The measurement of situational influences. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds), The Sage handbook of personality and individual differences. Sage.
26.
HorstmannK. T.RauthmannJ. F.ShermanR. A.ZieglerM. (2020).
Unveiling an exclusive link: Predicting behavior with personality, situation perception, and affect in a preregistered experience sampling study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000357
27.
HorstmannK. T.ZieglerM. (2016). Situational perception: Its theoretical foundation, assessment, and links to personality. In U. Kumar (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of personality assessment (pp. 31–43). Wiley Blackwell.
28.
HorstmannK. T.ZieglerM. (2019).
Situational perception and affect: Barking up the wrong tree?Personality and Individual Differences,
136, 132–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.020
29.
HuangJ. L.RyanA. M. (2011).
Beyond personality traits: A study of personality states and situational contingencies in customer service jobs. Personnel Psychology,
64(2), 451–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01216.x
30.
HudsonN. W.FraleyR. C. (2015).
Volitional personality trait change: Can people choose to change their personality traits?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
109(3), 490–507. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000021
31.
JonesA. B.BrownN. A.SerfassD. G.ShermanR. A. (2017).
Personality and density distributions of behavior, emotions, and situations. Journal of Research in Personality,
69, 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.10.006
32.
JudgeT. A.ZapataC. P. (2015).
The person–situation debate revisited: Effect of situation strength and trait activation on the validity of the Big Five personality traits in predicting job performance. Academy of Management Journal,
58(4), 1149–1179. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0837
33.
KimL. E.JörgV.KlassenR. M. (2019).
A meta-analysis of the effects of teacher personality on teacher effectiveness and burnout. Educational Psychology Review,
31(1), 163–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9458-2
34.
KlassenR. M.KimL. E. (2017). Assessing critical attributes of prospective teachers: Implications for selection into initial teacher education programs. In D. W. Putwain & K. Smart (Eds), British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II: Psychological Aspects of Education (pp. 5–22). Wiley.
35.
KlumbP.ElferingA.HerreC. (2009).
Ambulatory assessment in industrial/organizational psychology. European Psychologist,
14(2), 120–131. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.14.2.120
36.
KlusmannU.KunterM.TrautweinU.LüdtkeO.BaumertJ. (2008a).
Engagement and emotional exhaustion in teachers: Does the school context make a difference?Applied Psychology,
57(s1), 127–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00358.x
37.
KlusmannU.KunterM.TrautweinU.LüdtkeO.BaumertJ. (2008b).
Teachers' occupational well-being and quality of instruction: The important role of self-regulatory patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology,
100(3), 702–715. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.702
38.
LorahJ. (2018).
Effect size measures for multilevel models: Definition, interpretation, and TIMSS example.Large-scale Assessments in Education,
6(1), 1--11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-018-0061-2
39.
McCormickB. W.ReevesC. J.DownesP. E.LiN.IliesR. (2020).
Scientific contributions of within-person research in management: Making the juice worth the squeeze. Journal of Management,
46(2), 321–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318788435
40.
McCraeR. R. (1987).
Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
52(6), 1258–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1258
41.
McDonaldR. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment.
Erlbaum.
42.
MelnickS. A.MeisterD. G. (2008).
A comparison of beginning and experienced teachers' concerns. Educational Research Quarterly,
31(3), 39–56.
43.
MolenaarP. C. M. (2004).
A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: Bringing the person back into scientific psychology, this time forever. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective,
2(4), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15366359mea0204_1
44.
MorseP.SauerbergerK. S.ToddE.FunderD. (2015a).
Relationships among personality, situational construal and social outcomes. European Journal of Personality,
29, 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1987
MurayamaK.GoetzT.MalmbergL.-E.PekrunR.TanakaA.MartinA. J. (2017).
Within-person analysis in educational psychology: Importance and illustrations. British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II,
12, 71–87.
47.
MurrayH. A. (1938). Explorations in personality.
Oxford University Press.
48.
MusekJ. (2007).
A general factor of personality: Evidence for the Big One in the five-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality,
41(6), 1213–1233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.02.003
49.
NakagawaS.SchielzethH. (2013).
A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution,
4(2), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x
50.
NezlekJ. B. (2007).
A multilevel framework for understanding relationships among traits, states, situations and behaviours. European Journal of Personality,
21(6), 789–810. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.640
51.
NezlekJ. B. (2017).
A practical guide to understanding reliability in studies of within-person variability. Journal of Research in Personality,
69, 149–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.06.020
52.
NisbettR. E.WilsonT. D. (1977).
The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
35(4), 250–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.4.250
53.
NoftleE. E.GustC. J. (2019).
Age differences across adulthood in interpretations of situations and situation–behaviour contingencies for Big Five states. European Journal of Personality,
33(3), 279–297. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2203
54.
NusbaumE. C.SilviaP. J.BeatyR. E. (2017).
Ha ha? Assessing individual differences in humor production ability. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,
11(2), 231–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000086
55.
ParrigonS.WooS. E.TayL.WangT. (2017).
CAPTION-ing the situation: A lexically-derived taxonomy of psychological situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
112(4), 642–681. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000111
56.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ. Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003).
Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
57.
PutmanS. M. (2012).
Investigating teacher efficacy: Comparing preservice and inservice teachers with different levels of experience. Action in Teacher Education,
34(1), 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2012.642285
58.
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
59.
RauthmannJ.HorstmannK. T.ShermanR. (2020). The psychological characteristics of situations: Towards an integrated taxonomy. In J. F. Rauthmann, R. A. Sherman & D. C. Funder (Eds), The Oxford handbook of psychological situations. Oxford University Press.
60.
RauthmannJ.ShermanR. (2019).
Toward a research agenda for the study of situation perceptions: A variance componential framework. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
23(3), 238–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318765600
RauthmannJ. F.Gallardo-PujolD.GuillaumeE. M.ToddE.NaveC. S.ShermanR. A.ZieglerM.JonesA. B.FunderD. C. (2014).
The Situational Eight DIAMONDS: A taxonomy of major dimensions of situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
107(4), 677–718. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037250
63.
RauthmannJ. F.JonesA. B.ShermanR. A. (2016).
Directionality of person-situation transactions: Are there spillovers among and between situation experiences and personality states?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
42(7), 893–909. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216647360
64.
RauthmannJ. F.ShermanR. A. (2016).
Ultra brief measures for the Situational Eight DIAMONDS domains. European Journal of Psychological Assessment,
32(2), 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000245
65.
RauthmannJ. F.ShermanR. A. (2018).
The description of situations: Towards replicable domains of psychological situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
114(3), 482–488. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000162
66.
RauthmannJ. F.ShermanR. A. (2020).
The situation of situation research: Knowns and unknowns. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(5), 473–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420925546
67.
Rauthmann, J. F., Sherman, R. A., & Funder, D. C. (2015a).
New horizons in research on psychological situations and environments. European Journal of Personality,
29(3), 382–432. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2005
68.
Rauthmann, J. F., Sherman, R. A., & Funder, D. C. (2015b).
Principles of situation research: Towards a better understanding of psychological situations. European Journal of Personality,
29, 363–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1994
69.
Rauthmann, J. F., Sherman, R. A., & Funder, D. C. (Eds). (2020). The Oxford handbook of psychological situations.
Oxford University Press.
70.
RauthmannJ. F.ShermanR. A.NaveC. S.FunderD. C. (2015).
Personality-driven situation experience, contact, and construal: How people’s personality traits predict characteristics of their situations in daily life. Journal of Research in Personality,
55, 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2015.02.003
71.
RintalaA.WampersM.Myin-GermeysI.ViechtbauerW. (2019).
Response compliance and predictors thereof in studies using the experience sampling method. Psychological Assessment,
31(2), 226–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000662
72.
SchmidtJ.KlusmannU.LüdtkeO.MöllerJ.KunterM. (2017).
What makes good and bad days for beginning teachers? A diary study on daily uplifts and hassles. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
48, 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.09.004
73.
SerfassD. G.ShermanR. A. (2013).
Personality and perceptions of situations from the Thematic Apperception Test. Journal of Research in Personality,
47, 708–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.06.007
74.
ShermanR. A.NaveC. S.FunderD. (2013).
Situational construal is related to personality and gender. Journal of Research in Personality,
47, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.10.008
75.
ShermanR. A.NaveC. S.FunderD. C. (2010).
Situational similarity and personality predict behavioral consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
99(2), 330–343. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019796
76.
ShermanR. A.RauthmannJ. F.BrownN. A.SerfassD. G.JonesA. B. (2015).
The independent effects of personality and situations on real-time expressions of behavior and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
109(5), 872–888. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000036
77.
SkaalvikE. M.SkaalvikS. (2009).
Does school context matter? Relations with teacher burnout and job satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education,
25(3), 518–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.12.006
78.
SnijdersT. A. B.BoskerR. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling.
Sage Publishing.
79.
StiegerM.FluckigerC.RueggerD.KowatschT.RobertsB. W.AllemandM. (2021).
Changing personality traits with the help of a digital personality change intervention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
118(8), e2017548118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2017548118
80.
SunJ.RhemtullaM.VazireS. (2020). Eavesdropping on missing data: What are university students doing when they miss experience sampling reports? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220964639
ThorndikeE. L. (1920).
A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology,
4(1), 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0071663
83.
TsaiY.-M.KunterM.LüdtkeO.TrautweinU.RyanR. M. (2008).
What makes lessons interesting? The role of situational and individual factors in three school subjects. Journal of Educational Psychology,
100(2), 460–472. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.460
84.
WilsonR. E.ThompsonR. J.VazireS. (2017).
Are fluctuations in personality states more than fluctuations in affect?Journal of Research in Personality,
69, 110–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.06.006
85.
WiltJ.RevelleW. (2019).
The Big Five, everyday contexts and activities, and affective experience. Personality and Individual Differences,
136, 140–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.12.032
86.
WoodR. E.BeckmannN.BirneyD. P.BeckmannJ. F.MinbashianA.ChauR. (2019).
Situation contingent units of personality at work.Personality and Individual Differences,
136, 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.026
87.
WrzusC.WagnerG. G.RiedigerM. (2016).
Personality-situation transactions from adolescence to old age. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
110(5), 782–799. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000054
88.
ZieglerM.HorstmannK. T.ZieglerJ. (2019).
Personality in situations: Going beyond the OCEAN and introducing the Situation Five. Psychological Assessment,
31(4), 567–580. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000654
