fei75766_ch18_569-609.indd 592  02/24/20 10:50 AM
Part VI    Learning-Cognitive Theories592
personality, butitisasterile taxonomy thatfailstoexplain behavior (Mischel, 1990, 
1999, 2004; Mischel etal.,2002; Shoda &Mischel, 1998).
Formany years, research hasfailed tosupport theconsistency ofpersonality 
traits across situations. Hugh Hartshorne andMark May, intheirclassic 1928 study, 
found thatschoolchildren whowerehonest inonesituation weredeceitful inanother. 
Forexample, some children would cheat ontestsbutnotstealparty favors; others 
would break rules inanathletic contest butnotcheat onatest.Some psychologists, 
suchasSeymour Epstein (1979, 1980), haveargued thatstudies suchasHartshorne 
andMay’s usedbehaviors thataretoospecific. Epstein contended that,rather than
relying onsingle behaviors, researchers must aggregate measures ofbehavior; that
is,theymust obtain asumofmany behaviors. Inother words, Epstein would say
thateventhough people donotalways display astrong personal trait,forexample, 
conscientiousness, thesumtotaloftheirindividual behaviors willreflect agenerally 
conscientious core. 
However, Mischel (1965) hadearlier found thatathree-person assessment 
committee, which usedaggregated information from avariety ofscores, could not
reliably predict performance ofPeace Corps teachers. Thecorrelation between the
committee’s judgment andtheperformance oftheteachers wasanonsignificant 
0.20. Moreover, Mischel (1968) contended thatcorrelations ofabout 0.30between 
different measures ofthesame traitaswellasbetween traitscores andsubsequent 
behaviors represented theouter limits oftraitconsistency. Thus, these relatively low
correlations between traits andbehavior arenotduetotheunreliability oftheassess -
ment instrument buttotheinconsistencies inbehavior. Even withperfectly reliable 
measures, Mischel argued, specific behaviors willnotaccurately predict personality 
traits.
Person-Situation Interaction
Intime, however, Mischel (1973, 2004) came toseethatpeople arenotempty ves-
selswithnoenduring personality traits. Heacknowledged thatmost people have
some consistency intheirbehavior, buthecontinued toinsist thatthesituation hasa
powerful effect onbehavior. Mischel’s objection totheuseoftraits aspredictors of
behaviors rested notwiththeirtemporal instability butwiththeirinconsistency from 
onesituation toanother. Hesawthatmany basic dispositions canbestable overa
longperiod oftime. Forexample, astudent mayhaveahistory ofbeing conscientious 
withregard toacademic work butfailtobeconscientious incleaning hisapartment 
ormaintaining hiscarinworking condition. Hislackofconscientiousness incleaning 
hisapartment maybeduetodisinterest, andhisneglect ofhiscarmaybetheresult 
ofinsufficient knowledge. Thus, thespecific situation interacts withtheperson’s com-
petencies, interests, goals, values, expectancies, andsoforth topredict behavior. To
Mischel, these views oftraits orpersonal dispositions, though important inpredicting 
human behavior, overlook thesignificance ofthespecific situation inwhich people 
function. 
Personal dispositions influence behavior onlyunder certain conditions andin
certain situations. Thisviewsuggests thatbehavior isnotcaused byglobal personal 
traits butbypeople’s perceptions ofthemselves inaparticular situation. Forexam -
ple,ayoung manwhotypically isveryshyaround young women maybehave inanFinal PDF to printer