Individual differences in contingencies between situation characteristics and personality states.
Open accessAbstract
Contingencies between situational variables and psychological states have been proposed as key individual difference variables by many theoretical approaches to personality. Despite their relevance, the basic properties, nomological correlates, and factor structure of individual differences in contingencies have not been examined so far. We address these fundamental questions in five studies with overall N = 952 participants and N = 32,052 unique assessments. Individual differences in situation characteristic-state contingencies (SCSCs) between DIAMONDS situation characteristics and Big Five personality states were examined in everyday life. SCSCs showed substantial variation across participants, and individual differences in them were moderately reliable (average meta-analytic reliability = .47) and short-term stable (average meta-analytic latent stability = .43). They were weakly and inconsistently related to average personality states, self-reported personality traits, subjective happiness, and sociodemographic variables across studies. However, there were meaningful intercorrelations among SCSCs that could be described by four factors: contingencies involving (1) positive states and situational problems, (2) positive states and situational rewards, (3) thinking/work and requirements of thinking/work, and (4) neurotic states. Overall, our findings support the notion of SCSCs as potentially important individual difference variables, and we sketch future lines of research on contingencies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Sample size in factor analysis.
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.4.1.84 · Cited by 5,497 · see citing works
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001 · Cited by 4,244 · see citing works
A Measure of Subjective Happiness: Preliminary Reliability and Construct Validation
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999) · Social Indicators Research · doi:10.1023/a:1006824100041 · Cited by 4,071 · see citing works
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.2.246 · Cited by 3,889 · see citing works
Advanced Bayesian Multilevel Modeling with the R Package brms
Bürkner, P.-C. (2018) · The R Journal · doi:10.32614/rj-2018-017 · Cited by 3,015 · see citing works
Fleeson, W. (2001) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.1011 · Cited by 1,436 · see citing works
Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2010) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0021212 · Cited by 1,059 · see citing works
Constraints on Generality (COG): A Proposed Addition to All Empirical Papers
Simons, D. J., Shoda, Y., & Lindsay, D. S. (2017) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691617708630 · Cited by 986 · see citing works
Fleeson, W., & Jayawickreme, E. (2015) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2014.10.009 · Cited by 839 · see citing works
Situation-based contingencies underlying trait-content manifestation in behavior
Fleeson, W. (2007) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00458.x · Cited by 455 · see citing works
O'Neill, S. C., Cohen, L. H., Tolpin, L. H., & Gunthert, K. C. (2004) · Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1521/jscp.23.2.172.31015 · Cited by 141 · see citing works
Horstmann, K. T., Rauthmann, J. F., Sherman, R. A., & Ziegler, M. (2021) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspp0000357 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Kuper, N., Breil, S. M., Horstmann, K. T., Roemer, L., Lischetzke, T., Sherman, R. A., Back, M. D., Denissen, J. J. A., & Rauthmann, J. F.
- Affiliations
- Bielefeld University (DE)
- University of Münster (DE)
- University of Siegen (DE)
- GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences (DE)
- University of Koblenz and Landau (DE)
- Utrecht University (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Kuper, Niclas
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 2022-11
- Volume
- 123
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1166-1198
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W4302305379
- Cited by
- 63
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 11.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- public-domain
- Locations
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PUB – Publications at Bielefeld University (Bielefeld University) (submittedVersion)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation Grant (1420105)
- German Research Foundation (BA 3731/6-1)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Keywords
- individual differences, personality states, Big Five personality traits, diamond, situation characteristics, positive affect, negative affect, neurotic states, situational problems, factor structure, reliability statistics, everyday life
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Individuality, Personality, Personality Disorders, Reproducibility of Results, Self Report
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review