The lack of cross-situational consistency, i.e., cross-situational specificity has usually been treated as “error” in social sciences. A theory of cross-situational specificity is needed, and some elements of such a theory are provided here. Behavior is explained by the goals people have, the means they can use to reach the goals, and the values placed upon consequences. Based on expectancy-value models, it is shown how several different behavior-outcome relationships can interact in a given situation and how this can help explain apparent cross-situational inconsistency.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BemD. J.Constructing a theory of the triple typology: Some (second) thoughts on nomothetic and idiographic approaches to personality. Journal of Personality, 1983, 51, 566–577.
2.
BemD. J.AllenA.Predicting some of the people some of the time, the search for cross-situational consistencies in behavior. Psychological Review, 1974, 81, 506–520.
3.
CampbellD. T.FiskeD. W.Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1959, 56, 81–105.
4.
CronbachL. J.Essentials of psychological testing. (3rd ed.) New York: Harper & Row, 1970.
5.
EndlerN. S.Interactionism: A personality model, but not yet a theory. In PageM. M. (Ed.), Personality—current theory and research. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation1982. Lincoln, NE: Univer. of Nebraska Press, 1983. Pp. 155–200.
6.
EpsteinS.The stability of behavior: II. Implications for psychological research. American Psychologist, 1980, 35, 790–806.
7.
FeatherN. T. (Ed.) Expectations and actions: Expectancy-value models in psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1982.
8.
HeckhausenH.Motivation und Handeln, Lehrbuch der Motivationspsychologie. Heidelberg: Springer, 1980.
9.
KenrickD. T.FunderD. C.Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the person-situation debate. American Psychologist, 1988, 43, 23–34.
10.
MagnussonD.EndlerN. S. (Eds.) Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1977.
11.
MischelW.Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley, 1968.
12.
MischelW.Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 1973, 80, 252–283.
13.
MischelW.Convergences and challenges in the search for consistency. American Psychologist, 1984, 39, 351–364.
14.
MischelW.PeakeP. K.Some facets of consistency: Replies to Epstein, Funder, and Bem. Psychological Review, 1983, 90, 394–402.
15.
PatryJ-L.Cross-situational consistency of behavior: Triple relevance for research in education. Scientific contributions on education, Pedagogical Institute of the University of Fribourg, 1987.
16.
PatryJ-L.Transsituationale Konsistenz des Verhaltens und Handelns in der Erziehung. Bern: Lang, in press.
17.
PervinL. A.The stasis and flow of behavior: Toward a theory of goals. In PageM. M. (Ed.), Personality—current theory and research. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1982. Lincoln, NE: Univer. of Nebraska Press, 1983. Pp. 1–53.
18.
PhaletK.Individual goals and thoughts: A cognitive-incentive contribution. Paper read at the Fourth European Conference on Personality, Stockholm, 1988.
