Share This Article:

An Experimental Analysis of the Assessment and Perception of Behavior Change: How Summary Measures Influence Sensitivity to Change Processes

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:190KB) PP. 1-10
DOI: 10.4236/psych.2013.41001    3,579 Downloads   6,106 Views   Citations

ABSTRACT

A series of experiments examined how summary assessment measures influence people’s ability to detect change in behavior over time and across situations. Two measures that are often used to assess child behavior (Teacher Report Form) and adult personality (Five Factor Inventory) were examined. Each instrument led perceivers to focus on the overall frequency of targets’ behavior, even when targets differed both in how they reacted to social events and in how often they experienced those events in their interactions with others. Although people adopted an overall frequency perspective when using summary measures, they detected changes in events and targets’ if then reactions to events when using alternative context-specific measures. The findings demonstrate how summary trait methods can shift perceivers’ attention away from situational factors and thereby yield trait scores that are insensitive to context-specific but potentially important changes in targets’ social behavior.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Hartley, A. , Wright, J. , Zakriski, A. & Banducci, A. (2013). An Experimental Analysis of the Assessment and Perception of Behavior Change: How Summary Measures Influence Sensitivity to Change Processes. Psychology, 4, 1-10. doi: 10.4236/psych.2013.41001.

References

[1] Achenbach, T. M. (1993). Empirically based taxonomy: How to use syndromes and profile types derived from the CBCL/4-18, TRF, & YSR. Burlington: University of Vermont.
[2] Achenbach, T. M., Howell, C. T., McConaughy, S. H., & Stanger, C. (1995). Six-year predictors of problems in a national sample of children and youth: I. Cross-informant syndromes. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 34, 336-347.
[3] Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms & profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont. doi:10.1097/00004583-199503000-00020
[4] Cervone, D., Shadel, W. G., & Jencius, S. (2001). Social-cognitive theory of personality assessment. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 33-50. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0501_3
[5] Cervone, D. (2005). Personality architecture: Within-person structures and processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 423-452. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070133
[6] Chun, W. Y., Spiegel, S., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2002). Assimilative behavior identification can also be resource dependent: The unimodel perspective on personal-attribution phases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 542-555. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.3.542
[7] Costa Jr., P., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
[8] Denissen, J. J. A., & Penke, L. (2008). Motivational individual reaction norms underlying the Five-Factor model of personality: First steps towards a theory-based conceptual framework. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1285-1302. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.04.002
[9] Dirks, M. A., Treat, T. A., & Weersing, V. R. (2007). The situation specificity of youth responses to peer provocation. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 36, 621-628. doi:10.1080/15374410701662758
[10] Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 1011-1027. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.1011
[11] Fournier, M. A., Moskowitz, D. S., & Zuroff, D. C. (2008). Integrating dispositions, signatures, and the interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 531-545. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.531
[12] Fox, C. R., & Levav, J. (2004). Partition-edit-count: Naive extensional reasoning in judgment of conditional probability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 626-642. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.4.626
[13] Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Rationality for mortals: How people cope with uncertainty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[14] Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 21-38. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.21
[15] Gresham, F. M., Cook, C. R., Collins, T., Rasethwane, K., Dart, E., Truelson, E. et al. (2010). Developing a change-sensitive brief behavior rating scale as a progress monitoring tool for social behavior: An example using the social skills rating system-teacher form. School Psychology Review, 39, 364-379.
[16] Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social skills rating system manual. Circle Pines: American Guidance Service.
[17] Hartley, A. G., Zakriski, A. L., Wright, J. C. (2011). Probing the depths of informant discrepancies: Contextual influences on divergence and convergence. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 40, 1-13. doi:10.1080/15374416.2011.533404
[18] Helson, R., Jones, C., & Kwan, V. S. Y. (2002). Personality change over 40 years of adulthood: Hierarchical linear modeling analyses of two longitudinal samples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 752-766. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.3.752
[19] Henry, D. B. (2006). Associations between peer nominations, teacher ratings, self-reports, and observations of malicious and disruptive behavior. Assessment, 13, 241-252. doi:10.1177/1073191106287668
[20] Hoffenaar, P. J., & Hoeksma, J. B. (2002). The structure of oppositionality: Response dispositions and situational aspects. Journal of Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Health Disciplines, 43, 375-385.
[21] Hunsinger, M., Isbell, L. M., & Clore, G. L. (2011). Sometimes happy people focus on the trees and sad people focus on the forest: Context-dependent effects of mood in impression formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
[22] John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The big five inventory—Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
[23] Kammrath, L. K., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Mischel, W. (2005). Incorporating if … then … personality signatures in person perception: Beyond the person-situation dichotomy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 605-618. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.605
[24] Mischel, W. (2009). From personality and assessment (1968) to personality science. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 282-290. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.037
[25] Mischel, W., & Peake, P. K. (1982). Beyond déjà vu in the search for cross-situational consistency. Psychological Review, 89, 730-755. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.89.6.730
[26] Reeder, G. D., Monroe, A. E., & Pryor, J. B. (2008). Impressions of Milgram’s obedient teachers: Situational cues inform inferences about motives and traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1-17. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.1
[27] Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10). New York: Academic Press.
[28] Schaller, M. (1992). In-group favoritism and statistical reasoning in social inference: Implications for formation and maintenance of group stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 61-74. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.1.61
[29] Schwarz, N., & Oyserman, D. (2011). Asking questions about behavior: Self reports in evaluation research. In Melvin, M., Donaldson, S., & Campbell, B. (Eds.), Social Psychology and Evaluation. New York: Guildford Press.
[30] Smith, E. R., & Collins, E. C. (2009). Contextualizing person perception: Distributed social cognition. Psychological Review, 116, 343 364. doi:10.1037/a0015072
[31] Smith, R. E., Shoda, Y., Cumming, S. P., & Smoll, F. L. (2009). Behavioral signatures at the ballpark: Intraindividual consistency of adults’ situation-behavior patterns and their interpersonal consequen ces. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 187-195. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.006
[32] Tellegen, A. (1991). Personality traits: Issues of definition, evidence and assessment. In W. Grove, & D. Cicchetti (Eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology: Essays in honor of Paul Everett Meehl (pp. 10-35). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
[33] Terracciano, A., McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr., P. (2009). Intra-individual change in personality stability and age. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 31-37. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.09.006
[34] Trope, Y., & Gaunt, R. (2000). Processing alternative explanations of behavior: Correction or integration? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 344-354. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.344
[35] Vansteelandt, K., & Van Mechlen, I. (1998). Individual differences in situation-behavior profiles: A triple-typology model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 751-765. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.751
[36] Watson, D. (2004). Stability versus change, dependability versus error: Issues in the assessment of personality over time. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 319-350. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2004.03.001
[37] Wood, D., & Roberts, B. W. (2006). Cross-sectional and longitudinal tests of the personality and role identity structural model (PRISM). Journal of Personality, 74, 779-810. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00392.x
[38] Wright, J. C., Lindgren, K. P., & Zakriski, A. L. (2001). Syndromal versus contextualized personality assessment: Differentiating environmental and dispositional determinants of boys’ aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1176-1189. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1176
[39] Wright, J. C., & Mischel, W. (1987). A conditional approach to dispositional constructs: The local predictability of social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1159-1177. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1159

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2019 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.