 31. Persons, Situations, and Person–Situation Interactions  673
status as either a fixed or a growth theorist 
can affect their goals and behavior. More -
over, these effects can be shaped by individ -
uals’ beliefs about their actual levels of intel -
ligence. Consider growth theorist students 
who believe that intelligence is changeable 
and not set. When required to do, say, a class 
project, they are theorized to have a “mas -
tery goal” of increasing their intelligence. 
This goal produces behavior aimed at per -
sisting and learning, regardless of whether 
the students view their level of intelligence as 
high or low. In contrast, consider fixed theo -
rist students, who believe that intelligence is 
set. When working on a class project, they 
are theorized to have a “performance” goal 
of wanting to be judged in way that is posi -
tive, or at least not negative. The exact na -
ture of this goal, and subsequent behavior, 
hinges on the students’ views of their actual 
levels of intelligence. Among fixed theorists, 
those who believe that they have low  intel -
ligence will likely have the goal of avoiding 
negative judgments (i.e., avoid being seen as 
having the low intelligence they see them -
selves as having). This goal produces “help -
less” behavior, such as failing to persist or 
avoiding challenges. Fixed theorists who 
believe they have a high  level of intelligence 
will have the goal of receiving positive judg -
ments (i.e., being seen as having the high in -
telligence they see themselves as having).
The concepts of fixed and growth mind -
sets illustrate contextualized personality 
variables in several ways. First, they are seen 
as stable attributes of a person. One’s theory 
of intelligence (fixed or growth) is “a core 
assumption in [the person’s] world view . . . 
that defines the individual’s reality and im -
parts meaning to events (Dweck et al., 1995, 
p. 268). Presumably, such “core assump -
tions” are stable, and indeed, evidence sug -
gests stability over at least a 2-week period 
(Dweck et al., 1995). Second, reflecting the 
idea of person–  situation interactions, their 
function is highly connected to particular 
situations or situational features. Fixed or 
growth mindsets of intelligence are relevant 
only for situations seen as requiring or re -
vealing intellectual competence. Third, fixed 
and growth mindsets are relatively “narrow” 
constructs, in that one’s theory of intelligence 
might differ from one’s theory of morality, 
which itself might differ from one’s theory 
of personality. Indeed, Dweck et al. note that “we are dealing not with a generalized cog -
nitive style, but with domain-  specific con -
ceptual frameworks” (p. 269). Many contex -
tualized personality variables are similarly 
“narrow” in one way or another
A well-known categorization of different 
types of contextualized personality variables 
is Mischel and Shoda’s (1995) list of “cogni -
tive affective units” (CAUs). Their list in -
cludes (1) encodings (having to do with how 
people interpret themselves, their experienc -
es, or their environment), (2) expectancies 
and beliefs (e.g., fixed and growth mindsets 
of intelligence), (3) affect (emotional reac -
tions in a situation), (4) goals and values (e.g., 
wanting to be seen in certain ways), and (5) 
competencies and self-  regulatory plans (e.g., 
the ability to plan ways of achieving one’s 
goals and stick to those plans). In general, 
contextualized personality variables, or 
social-  cognitive variables, focus on cogni -
tion, affect, and motivation, again, as illus -
trated by fixed and growth mindsets. A host 
of variables reflect this approach, including 
rejection sensitivity (Romero-  Canyas, An -
derson, Reddy, & Downey, 2009), personal 
strivings (Emmons, 1986), perceived self- 
efficacy (Cervone, 1997), domain-  specific 
social intelligence (Cantor & Khilstrom, 
1989), and self-  schemas (Markus & Wurf, 
1987), to name but a few.
Such variables, in a sense, reconceptualize 
the “person” in ways that differ from tradi -
tional conceptualizations. Persons are seen 
as being more directly tuned in to situational 
stimuli than are traditional cross-  situationally 
broad dispositions. Thus, this approach 
builds on the general idea of person–  situation 
interactions by focusing on personality con -
structs that are, by definition and function, 
inherently connected to situations.
Focus on  Within‑Person Variability 
and Patterning of  Behavior
A related avenue through which researchers 
have explored the idea of person–  situation 
interaction is to focus on variations of be -
havior within  rather than across persons 
(e.g., Cervone, 2005; Fleeson, 2004; Furr, 
2009; Mischel & Shoda, 1995). The idea is 
that every person varies his or her behavior 
across the situations of life, and that each 
person’s pattern of variation is both consis -
tent and idiosyncratic.