Three experience-sampling studies explored the distributions of Big-Five-relevant states (behavior) across 2 to 3 weeks of everyday life. Within-person variability was high, such that the typical individual regularly and routinely manifested nearly all levels of all traits in his or her everyday behavior. Second, individual differences in central tendencies of behavioral distributions were almost perfectly stable. Third, amount of behavioral variability (and skew and kurtosis) were revealed as stable individual differences. Finally, amount of within-person variability in extraversion was shown to reflect individual differences in reactivity to extraversion-relevant situational cues. Thus, decontextualized and noncontingent Big-Five content is highly useful for descriptions of individuals' density distributions as wholes. Simultaneously, contextualized and contingent personality units (e.g., conditional traits, goals) are needed for describing the considerable within-person variation.

No abstract

Personality researchers should modify models of traits to include mechanisms of differential reaction to situations. Whole Trait Theory does so via five main points. First, the descriptive side of traits should be conceptualized as density distributions of states. Second, it is important to provide an explanatory account of the Big 5 traits. Third, adding an explanatory account to the Big 5 creates two parts to traits, an explanatory part and a descriptive part, and these two parts should be recognized as separate entities that are joined into whole traits. Fourth, Whole Trait Theory proposes that the explanatory side of traits consists of social-cognitive mechanisms. Fifth, social-cognitive mechanisms that produce Big-5 states should be identified.

One of the fundamental questions in personality psychology is whether and how strongly trait standing relates to the traits that people actually manifest in their behavior, when faced with real pressures and real consequences of their actions. One reason this question is fundamental is the common belief that traits do not predict how individuals behave, which leads to the reasonable conclusion that traits are not important to study. However, this conclusion is surprising given that there is almost no data on the ability of traits to predict distributions of naturally occurring, representative behaviors of individuals (and that there are many studies showing that traits do indeed predict specific behaviors). This paper describes a meta-analysis of 15 experience-sampling studies, conducted over the course of eight years, amassing over 20,000 reports of trait manifestation in behavior. Participants reported traits on typical self-report questionnaires, then described their current behavior multiple times per day for several days, as the behavior was occurring. Results showed that traits, contrary to expectations, were strongly predictive of individual differences in trait manifestation in behavior, predicting average levels with correlations between .42 and .56 (approaching .60 for stringently restricted studies). Several other ways of summarizing trait manifestation in behavior were also predicted from traits. These studies provide evidence that traits are powerful predictors of actual manifestation of traits in behavior.The purpose of this paper is to identify the implications that standing on each Big Five trait, as assessed by questionnaire, has for the distributions of trait manifestations in behavior. One of the basic questions in personality psychology is whether what people report they do in general and in reflection predicts what they do when confronted with real situations and when their actions have real consequences. That is, whether descriptions of people at the trait level are accurate as descriptions of the traits people actually manifest in their behavior, as they go about their lives and encounter situations and other influences on behavior. In fact, whether personality is required as an explanatory concept may depend on whether, and to what extent, personality is a determinant of social behavior. The received wisdom is that personality predictions vary from .00 to a maximum of .30 (or maybe .40) (Ross & Nisbett, 1991). As noted by Kenrick & Funder (1988), Swann & Seyle (2005), and others, many have taken thisPublisher's Disclaimer: The following manuscript is the final accepted manuscript. It has not been subjected to the final copyediting, fact-checking, and proofreading required for formal publication. It is not the definitive, publisher-authenticated version. The American Psychological Association and its Council of Editors disclaim any responsibility or liabilities for errors or omissions of this manuscript version, any version derived from this manuscript by NIH, or other third partie...

Two studies investigated whether situations are associated with the manifestation of Big Five trait contents in behavior. Several times per day for 2 or 5 weeks, participants reported their current Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability states and rated the concurrent situation on several characteristics. Multilevel models tested for the average individual's contingency of each Big Five state on each situation characteristic and for whether individuals differed from each other reliably in those contingencies. Results showed that (1) there are psychologically active characteristics of situations on which trait-manifesting behavior is contingent; (2) contingencies on psychologically active characteristics of varying situations are part of the explanation for the sizeable within-person variability in behavior; (3) individuals differ reliably in their contingencies, and such individual differences may partially explain individual differences in amount of variability; and (4) the situation characteristics that are psychologically active differ by trait. These findings suggest that within-person variability in personality states is meaningful and is related to situations, that personality psychology should characterize situations in terms of their relevance to personality states, and that process and individual-difference structure approaches can be integrated in personality psychology.

This article investigates whether rapid variation within a person in extraversion is associated with positive affect variation in that person. In Study 1, participants reported their extraversion and positive affect every 3 hr for 2 weeks. Each participant was happier when acting extraverted than when acting introverted. Study 2Јs diary methodology replicated the relationship for weekly variations in positive affect. Study 3's experimental methodology replicated the relationship when extraversion was manipulated within a fixed situation. Thus, the relationship between extraversion and positive affect, previously demonstrated between persons, also characterizes the internal, ongoing psychological functioning of individuals and is likely to be explained by something capable of rapid intraindividual variation. Furthermore, traits and states are at least somewhat isomorphic, and acting extraverted may increase well-being.

In this target article, we argue that personality processes, personality structure, and personality development have to be understood and investigated in integrated ways in order to provide comprehensive responses to the key questions of personality psychology. The psychological processes and mechanisms that explain concrete behaviour in concrete situations should provide explanation for patterns of variation across situations and individuals, for development over time as well as for structures observed in intra-individual and inter-individual differences. Personality structures, defined as patterns of covariation in behaviour, including thoughts and feelings, are results of those processes in transaction with situational affordances and regularities. It cannot be presupposed that processes are organized in ways that directly correspond to the observed structure. Rather, it is an empirical question whether shared sets of processes are uniquely involved in shaping correlated behaviours, but not uncorrelated behaviours (what we term 'correspondence' throughout this paper), or whether more complex interactions of processes give rise to population-level patterns of covariation (termed 'emergence'). The paper is organized in three parts, with part I providing the main arguments, part II reviewing some of the past approaches at (partial) integration, and part III outlining conclusions of how future personality psychology should progress towards complete integration. Working definitions for the central terms are provided in the appendix.

Experience sampling methods are essential tools for building a modern idiographic approach to understanding personality. These methods yield multiple snapshots of people's experiences over time in daily life and allow researchers to identify patterns of behavior within a given individual, rather than strictly identify patterns of behavior across individuals, as with standard nomothetic approaches. In this article, we discuss the origin and evolution of idiographic methods in the field of personality and explain how experience sampling methods function as modern day idiographic methods in this field. We then review four primary ways in which experience sampling methods have been used to foster idiographic approaches in personality research. Specifically, we highlight approaches that examine individual differences in temporal and behavioral distributions, situation-behavior contingencies, daily processes, and the structure of daily experience. Following a brief methodology primer, we end by discussing future directions for idiographic experience sampling approaches in personality psychology and beyond.'Novel and somewhat daring methods will be required …' (Allport, 1937; 20).In 1937, Gordon Allport challenged the field of personality to develop 'novel and somewhat daring' research methods that would embrace the rich and complex nature of human personality -those regularities in the way an individual thinks, feels, and behaves. In particular, Allport called for the use of idiographic methods, which aim to identify patterns of behavior, thought, and emotion within an individual over time and contexts, rather than to strictly identify patterns of differences between individuals, as is the case with standard nomothetic approaches. Allport's call to methodological arms is exemplified by theorists including Murray, Mischel, and many others, who have promoted more personalized and contextualized approaches to understanding the science of personality.