670 vI. SELF‑ AND S OCIAL P ROCESSES
2012), the tend and befriend theory of the 
effect of stress on affiliative behavior (Tay -
lor, 2012), and the “regulatory focus theory 
of goal pursuit (Higgins, 2012).
And like the dispositional approach, such 
work reveals many important facts, two 
of which have particular relevance for this 
chapter. First, situational qualities can have 
a significant impact on important behav -
iors, cognitions, and emotions (e.g., Ross & 
Nisbett, 1991). Second, and relatedly, the 
effects of some situational qualities may be 
surprising and/or beyond the awareness of 
those affected by them. That said, questions 
have recently arisen regarding the replicabil -
ity of some (perhaps many) of the more sur -
prising and counterintuitive apparent effects 
of situational qualities (e.g., Open Science 
Collaboration, 2015). Time—and further 
attempts at replication—  will tell us which 
effects are indeed as well established as they 
once seemed. Nevertheless, it is undeni -
able that people’s behavior is responsive to 
situational attributes, and a comprehensive 
theory of behavior must include and account 
for this fact.
Persons versus  Situations
Though it is indisputable that personality 
dispositions and situations both affect be -
havior, psychologists have dedicated enor -
mous amounts of energy and emotion to a 
competitive view of persons and situations. 
When viewed as competing, dispositions 
and situations are implicitly conceptualized 
as forces pushing on behavior from different 
directions: Dispositions,  which are prop -
erties of individual persons, push from the 
inside (the “meaty side” of the dermis, in 
Gilbert and Malone’s [1995, p. 21] memo -
rable phrase), whereas situations  push from 
the (“sunny”) outside. This view of dispo -
sitions and situations as competing forces 
has a strong, almost irresistible intuitive ap -
peal, and, in this “person–  situation debate,” 
many psychologists took one side or the 
other—  generally personality psychologists 
emphasized the importance of dispositions, 
whereas social psychologists highlighted the 
power of situations.
Despite the hyperbole that has some -
times visited the person–  situation debate, 
it seems likely that no, or perhaps only a 
few, researchers believed that personality truly “doesn’t exist” or that situations truly 
“don’t matter.” However, researchers cer -
tainly fiercely debated which—  dispositions 
or situations—  are more  important in driv -
ing behavior. There was particularly serious 
debate over whether the power of personal -
ity is sufficient to merit any scientific atten -
tion.
Research over the past several decades has 
produced a resolution—  or at least an eas -
ing— of the person–  situation debate, with 
several important outcomes. One outcome 
is a broader recognition of the power and 
importance of personality dispositions. In -
deed, some (perhaps many) psychologists 
likely believe that no one currently questions 
the importance of personality dispositions. 
Unfortunately, although doubts about the 
relevance of personality have waned, they—
and the competitive view of persons and 
situations—  still echo within and beyond 
psychology.
Within psychology, one still hears argu -
ments for the power of the situation over 
persons and questions about the existence of 
personality dispositions. Grabbing almost 
any “introduction to psychology” text from 
one’s bookshelf, one finds statements such 
as “The concept of personality demands at 
least some consistency in behavior across 
situations. But evidence suggests that cross- 
situational consistency in behavior may be 
low” (Narine, 2014, p. 400). Or, for exam -
ple, one’s textbook might suggest that the 
certain studies reveal “the power of a bad 
situation to overwhelm the personalities and 
good upbringing of even the best and bright -
est among us” (Zimbardo, Johnson, & Mc -
Cann, 2017, Section 11.10.1).
Beyond psychology, one can hear doubts 
about the power and existence of personal -
ity as well. For example, a recent movement 
in moral philosophy pointed to the empirical 
literature in psychology and concluded that 
broad moral character traits do not exist, or 
furthermore, that personality psychology 
itself is useless (e.g., Doris, 2002; Harman, 
1999, 2009). For example, one influential 
philosopher claimed (to our great surprise!) 
that “Funder (2001) reports that personality 
psychology has collapsed as a serious aca -
demic subject” and that “to the extent that 
one is interested in the truth and accuracy 
of claims about character and personality, 
one needs to consult social psychology, not 