Introduction of the Scenario
This case study applies concepts of person-situation interactions to explore the case of Sharon. Person-situation interaction assesses whether the individual or the situation is more dominant in influencing behaviors. Sharon displays a talkative and friendly carefree attitude toward guests at her place during a dinner party. Sharon’s guests generally enjoy the party.
However, Sharon is completely different when invited by one of her guests. She only knows her host at the party. Sharon gets a drink and spend most her time in a corner, far from other guests. She rarely speaks and only provides simple answers of not more than three words and quickly thanks her host leaves without farewell to others after the dinner.
A Summary of the Scenario
Sharon is an active, talkative person at her home party. She is friendly, displays carefree attitude toward guest, and makes the party enjoyable.
However, Sharon is withdrawn at a party outside her home in which she only knows her host. Person-situation interaction assesses whether the individual or the situation is more dominant in influencing behaviors.
Sharon gets a drink and spend most her time in a corner, far from other guests. She rarely speaks and only provides simple answers of not more than three words and quickly thanks her host leaves without farewell to others after the dinner.
The situation at another party has changed Sharon into an introvert who can barely interact with others. Thus, the situation dominates Sharon’s behaviors at the party (Buss, 2009).
The Theorists
Henry Murray (1893-1988) was an American psychologist who proposed the theory of personality based on individuals’ motives, presses and needs (Hogan, 2009). Needs are perceived as individuals’ potential or abilities to react to in a given way under a specific situation. Thus, theories of personality tend to show that personalities depict individuals’ behaviors, which are determined by needs.
Some of these needs are not permanent and are dynamic. Conversely, other needs are relatively deeply rooted in individuals. Murray noted that many psychogenic needs took place unconsciously. Nevertheless, they influenced personality significantly.
Based on Murray’s theory, Sharon’s behaviors depend on her immediate needs and the situation. Thus, various situations provoke different responses from her. Sharon’s needs influence her behaviors at the parties. In this case, situation determines the behavior.
Harry Stack Sullivan argued that individuals do not have single, fixed personality. The theorist referred to this as illusion of individuality (Friedman & Schustack, 2003). This implies that the notion that an individual can only possess a single personality is an illusion. People tend to be different in different situations and often think about what other people perceive about them. Hence, these thoughts changes responses in a given situation.
Sullivan also referred to social self. That is, personality is influenced by interactions with other people. Social self-further reinforces the idea that individuals tend to change in different situations based on their relations with others. Thus, personality can present enduring interpersonal patterns but will change. Peers, social acceptance, isolation, rejection and loneness among others are critical aspects that affect individual behaviors in different situations.
Hence, Sharon becomes isolated and lonely because of a different situation in which she does not known anyone.
Influence of the situations on personality and behavior
The case of Sharon shows that the situation, which is often ignored, is vital in determining behaviors of individuals in different settings. Thus, behaviors alone do not reflect personality. Situational factors, even those that appear to be comparatively subtle, may not utterly eliminate effects of personality. This implies that one cannot only use behavior alone to explain personality. Instead, the explanation for personality should account for specific environments and different situations. Thus, the situational view on behavior and personality is imperative to understanding individuals.
Thus, theorists argue that personality and behaviors may change based on the prevailing situation (Friedman & Schustack, 2003). Nevertheless, there is also dispositional explanation to personality and behavior, which focus on comparatively permanent behaviors across situations and over period. Hence, different situational circumstances should not confuse researchers by understanding the scenario of Sharon.
Sharon depicts critical changes in behaviors and personality in a different situation and environment. Situations could interact to affect behavior and personality of individuals. Some people could display more consistent behavior patterns in different situations, but the same cannot be said of Sharon.
Behaviors could only emerge in specific situations. In addition, personality may lack constant effects on behaviors because such influences may fade. Hence, Sharon cannot have consistent behaviors in different parties (Fleeson & Noftle, 2009).
Some situations may elicit more expression of true personality, which is the case at Sharon’s home. However, in a different party, the situation can only provoke a limited range of behaviors. Thus, situations influence Sharon’s responses while her personality remains passive.
One can say that situation displays Sharon’s behaviors and responses in different parties.
The influence of the situations on behavior
It has been demonstrated that various situations have impacts on human behaviors. In most cases, however, individuals tend to ignore the influences of situations on their talks, actions and thoughts, which lead to poor understanding of personality. Hence, situational view should always be considered when evaluating behaviors.
The scenario of Sharon depicts that different scenarios manipulate behaviors. It is therefore important to consider situations and circumstances to explain individual behaviors. It seems that situations could be responsible for inconsistency in human behaviors.
Behaviors may not be consistent across different situations. This implies that individuals’ behaviors may not surpass the prevailing situation, the environment and moment to offer a consistent behavior throughout reflected in thoughts, actions and talks (Friedman & Schustack, 2003). The case of Sharon shows that whatever a person does could be absolutely dependent upon the prevailing situation.
As many researchers have demonstrated, behaviors depend on prevailing situations (Carnahan & McFarland, 2007). The scenario of Sharon also reflects such findings. Hence, individuals’ behaviors from one situation to another are variable, and such behaviors are generally influenced by situational circumstances (Friedman & Schustack, 2003).
Although situation view maintains that behaviors are influenced by situations, some situations may allow certain behaviors to prevail. In the case of Sharon, however, the previously expressed behaviors at her party failed to prevail in a different situation. Some individuals may display ease of adaptation to different situations, but Sharon lacks such adaptation mechanisms. Hence, Sharon depicts that individual’s behaviors could be less adaptable in relatively new situations. Behaviors, therefore, cannot dominate in certain situations. In some situations, the role of personality could be passive due to situational demands and expected responses.
How the individual’s personality changed given the situation
Situations play critical roles in influencing individuals’ behaviors. The case of Sharon depicts how personality can change from talkative, friendly, carefree, and enjoyment to withdrawn, loneliness, less talkative and shyness. These changes are determined the prevailing situations at the parties.
By observing individual’s personality changes, one can conclude that Sharon has clearly reveal other traits and behaviors, which are generally attributed to the prevailing various situations and environments (McCrae, 2002).
These responses are reflected in the new environment in which Sharon perhaps feels threatened, less secure, shy and unknown. The interpretation of the situation could have provoked these responses and, therefore, Sharon is unable to adapt to the new situation. One can observe that the personality has been depicted only situations where they could be needed or relevant.
Generally, personality should be more consistent across various situations. However, this consistency may not always be realized in certain situations (Friedman & Schustack, 2003). It has been observed that some situations are responsible for eliciting certain behaviors, which reflect personality. Certain behaviors should only displayed in situations where they are deemed as relevant, but in some instances, situations may suppress certain personality. For instance, anxiety or shyness could emerge in some situations to predict behaviors and personality of individuals. On the contrary, such behaviors and traits may not be witnessed in other situations.
Sharon, for instance, demonstrates that her personality changes based on prevailing situations, and some of her actions, thoughts and all that she does are influenced by situations.
Individuals also have choices of situations such as relationships, career, place, friends, and lifestyle among others, which reflect their traits. However, in this scenario, situation has dominated personality and, therefore, situations can be used to account for individuals’ personality.
Conclusion of the Scenario
The person-situation interactions presentation has covered the case of Sharon, who displays different behaviors at different situations. Person-situation interaction discourse evaluates whether the individual or the situation is more dominant in influencing behaviors. In this scenario, it is noted that the situation was more dominant in influencing Sharon’s behaviors. Her responses were elicited by the prevailing situations.
Overall, the person-situation interactions have led to diverse ways of explaining how individual personality interacts with situations to provoke new behaviors. Consequently, when explaining behaviors and personality traits, it is necessary to account for the influences of situations and acknowledge that personality may not always be consistent.
References
Buss, D. M. (2009). An evolutionary formulation of person–situation interactions. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(2), 241–242. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.019.
Carnahan, T., & McFarland, S. (2007). Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment: Could participant self-selection have led to the cruelty? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(5), 603-614. doi: 10.1177/0146167206292689.
Fleeson, W., & Noftle, E. (2009). The end of the person-situation debate: an emerging synthesis in the answer to the consistency question. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(4), 1667-1684.
Friedman, H. S., & Schustack, M. W. (2003). Personality: Classic Theories and Modern Research (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hogan, R. (2009). Much ado about nothing: The person-situation debate. Journal of Research in personality, 43(2), 249.
McCrae, R. (2002). The maturation of personality psychology: Adult personality development and psychological well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(4), 307-317.