A componential approach to situation perceptions is presented, disentangling Perceiver (how much people differ in perceiving situations), Situation (how much situations differ in how they are perceived), and Perceiver × Situation variance (how much perceivers idiosyncratically perceive specific situations) in a Situation Perception Components Model (SPCM). For frequency, valence, and activation ratings of 55 Big Five situations, the percentage of Perceiver, Situation, and Perceiver × Situation variance and relations between perceiver effects and perceivers' Big Five were investigated (N = 126). Perceiver × Situation variance appeared high for all situation classes. Neuroticism, Openness, and Conscientiousness situation classes yielded more perceiver, and Extraversion and Agreeableness situation classes more situation variance. Situation–perceiver effects correlated strongest with the perceivers' Big Five trait they expressed. The viability of variance decomposition in situation perception and future research is discussed.
AllportG. W. (1937). Personality–A psychological interpretation. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.
2.
BackM. D.BaumertA.DenissenJ. J. A.HartungF. M.PenkeL.SchmukleS. C.… WrzusC. (2011). PERSOC: A unified framework for understanding the dynamic interplay of personality and social relationships. European Journal of Personality, 25, 90–107.
3.
BackM. D.KennyD. A. (2010). The social relations model: How to understand dyadic processes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 855–870.
4.
BaronR. M.MisovichS. J. (1993). Dispositional knowing from an ecological perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 541–552.
BattistichV. A.ThompsonE. G. (1980). Students' perceptions of the college milieu: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 74–82.
7.
BlockJ.BlockJ. (1981). Studying situational dimensions: A grand perspective and some limited empiricism. In MagnussonD. (Ed.), Toward a psychology of situations: An interactional perspective (pp. 85–106). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
BorkenauP. (1990). Traits as ideal-based and goal-derived social categories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 381–396.
9.
BorkenauP.OstendorfF. (1993). NEO-Fünf-Faktoren-Inventar (NEO-FFI) nach Costa und McCrae. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
10.
BronfenbrennerU. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11.
CostaP. T.,JrMcCraeR. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
12.
CoutuW. (1949). Emergent human nature. A symbolic field interpretation. New York, NY: Knopf.
13.
CronbachL. J. (1955). Processes affecting scores on “understanding of others” and “assumed similarity.”. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 177–193.
14.
DenissenJ. J. A.PenkeL. (2008a). Individual reaction norms underlying the five factor model of personality: First steps towards a theory-based conceptual framework. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1285–1302.
15.
DenissenJ. J. A.PenkeL. (2008b). Neuroticism predicts reactions to cues of social inclusion. European Journal of Personality, 22, 497–517.
16.
DienerE.LarsenR. J.EmmonsR. A. (1984). Person situation interactions: Choice of situations and congruence response models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 580–592.
17.
EckesT. (1995). Features of situations: A two-mode clustering study of situation prototypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 366–374.
18.
EdwardsJ. A.TempletonA. (2005). The structure of perceived qualities of situations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 705–723.
19.
EndlerN. S. (1993). Personality: An interactional perspective. In HettemaP. J.DearyI. J. (Eds.), Foundations of personality (pp. 251–268). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
20.
FleesonW. (2007). Situation-based contingencies underlying trait-content manifestation in behavior. Journal of Personality, 75, 825–861.
21.
FleesonW.NoftleE. (2008). The end of the person-situation debate: An emerging synthesis in the answer to the consistency question. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1667–1684.
22.
ForgasJ. P. (1976). The perception of social episodes: Categorical and dimensional representations in two different social milieus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 199–209.
23.
FunderD. C. (2001). Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 197–221.
24.
FunderD. C. (2006). Towards a resolution of the personality triad: Persons, situations, and behaviors. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 21–34.
25.
FunderD. C. (2009). Persons, behaviors and situations: An agenda for personality psychology in the postwar era. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 120–126.
26.
FurrR. M.FunderD. C. (2004). Situational similarity and behavioral consistency: Subjective, objective, variable-centered, and person-centered approaches. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 421–447.
27.
HoganR. (2009). Much ado about nothing: The person-situation debate. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 249.
28.
IckesW.SnyderM.GarciaS. (1997). Personality influences on the choice of situations. In HoganR.JohnsonJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 165–195). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
29.
JohnO. P.SrivastavaS. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In PervinL. A.JohnO. P. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 102–138). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
30.
JuddC. M.ParkB. (1993). Definition and assessment of accuracy in social stereotypes. Psychological Review, 100, 109–128.
31.
JussimL. (2005). Accuracy in social perception: Criticisms, controversies, criteria, components, and cognitive processes. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–93). 37, San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
32.
KennyD. A. (1991). A general model of consensus and accuracy in interpersonal perception. Psychological Review, 98, 155–163.
33.
KennyD. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
34.
KennyD. A. (2004). PERSON: A general model of interpersonal perception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 265–280.
35.
KennyD. A.La VoieL. (1984). The social relations model. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 139–180). 18, San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
36.
KennyD. A.WestT. V.MalloyT.AlbrightL. (2006). Componential analysis of interpersonal perception data. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 282–294.
37.
KrahéB (1990). Situation cognition and coherence in personality: An individual-centered approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
38.
LewinK. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
39.
LewinK. (1946). Behavior and development as a function of the total situation. In CarmichaelL. (Ed.), Manual of child psychology (pp. 791–844). New York, NY: John Wiley.
40.
MischelW. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In MagnussonD.EndlerN. S. (Eds.), Personality at the cross-rods: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333–352). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
41.
MischelW.ShodaY. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246–268.
42.
MischelW.ShodaY. (1999). Integrating dispositions and processing dynamics within a unified theory of personality: The Cognitive Affective Personality System (CAPS). In PervinL.A.JohnO. P. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 197–218). New York, NY: Guilford.
43.
MurrayH. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
44.
PervinL. A. (1976). A free-response description approach to the analysis of person-situation interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 465–474.
45.
PervinL. A. (1978). Definitions, measurements, and classifications of stimuli, situations, and environments. Human Ecology, 6, 71–105.
46.
PervinL. A. (1982). The stasis and flow of behavior: Toward a theory of goals. In DienstbierR. A.PageM. M. (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 1–53). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
47.
PervinL. A. (1992). Transversing the individual-environment landscape: A personal odyssey. In WalshW. B.CraikK. H. (Eds.), Person-environment psychology: Models and perspectives (pp. 71–87). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
48.
R Development Core Team. (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
49.
ReisH. R. (2008). Reinvigorating the concept of situation in social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 311–329.
50.
RobertsB. W.CaspiA.MoffittT. (2003). Work experiences and personality development in young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 582–593.
51.
RossL.NisbettR. E. (1991). The person and the situation: Perspectives on social psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
52.
SaucierG.Bel-BaharT.FernandezC. (2007). What modifies the expression of personality tendencies? Defining basic domains of situation variables. Journal of Personality, 75, 479–504.
53.
ShermanR.A.NaveC.N.FunderD.C. (2010). Situational similarity and personality predict behavioral consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 330–343
54.
SnyderM.IckesW. (1985). Personality and social behavior. In LindzeyG.AronsonE. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2., 3rd ed., pp. 883–947). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
55.
SnyderM.IckesW. (1985). Personality and social behavior. In LindzeyG.AronsonE. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 883–947). 3rd ed2, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
56.
SwannW. B.SeyleC. (2005). Personality psychology’s comeback and its emerging symbiosis with social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 155–165.
57.
ten BergeM. A.de RaadB. (1999). Taxonomies of situations from a trait psychological perspective: A review. European Journal of Personality, 13, 337–360.
58.
ten BergeM. A.de RaadB. (2001). The construction of a joint taxonomy of traits and situations. European Journal of Personality, 15, 253–276.
59.
ten BergeM. A.de RaadB. (2002). The structure of situations from a personality perspective. European Journal of Personality, 16, 81–102.
60.
van HeckG. L.PeruginiM.CapraraG.FrögerJ. (1994). The big five as tendencies in situations. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 715–731.
61.
WagermanS. A.FunderD. C. (2009). Situations. In CorrP. J.MatthewsG. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of personality psychology. . Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
62.
WoodD.HarmsP.VazireS. (2010). Perceiver effects as projective tests: What your perceptions of others say about you. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 174–190.
63.
YangY.ReadS. J.MillerL. (2006). A taxonomy of situations from Chinese idioms: Goal processes as a central organizing principle. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 750–778.
64.
YangY.ReadS. J.MillerL. (2009). The Concept of Situations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 1018–1037.
