Toward a Structure- and Process-Integrated View of Personality: Traits as Density Distributions of States

Abstract

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.

Full text

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
2001,
Vol. 80, No. 6, 1011-1027Copyright 2001 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
0022-3514/01/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.80.6.1011
Toward a Structure- and Process-Integrated View of Personality:
Traits as Density Distributions of States
William Fleeson
Wake Forest University
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-reievant situational cues. Thus, decontextualized and noncon-
tingent 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.
The purpose of this article is to identify aspects of individuals'
everyday trait-relevant behavior over time that are relevant to and
explainable by personality psychology. The presumption is that,
because the same individual behaves differently on different oc-
casions, an individual's behavior over time forms a distribution;
the central proposal is that the entire distribution and its several
components are relevant to—and to be explained by—personality
psychology. Specifically, on the basis of a view of individuals as
actively reacting to context (Allport, 1937; Brown & Moskowitz,
1998;
Cantor, 1990; Diener, Larsen, & Emmons, 1984; Mischel,
1968;
Mischel & Peake, 1982; Mischel & Shoda, 1998; Mosko-
witz, 1982; Nesselroade, 1988, 1991; Revelle, 1995), it is pro-
posed, first, that the average individual routinely and regularly
expresses all levels of all traits and that this within-person vari-
ability is predictable as individual differences in reactions to
situational cues. Second, on the basis of work concerning the
predictability of behavior (e.g., Diener & Larsen, 1984; Epstein,
1979;
Moskowitz, 1982), it is proposed that although single be-
haviors are less predictable, the mean of the distribution is among
the most predictable variables in psychology. Third, on the basis of
theory that variability is itself a stable individual-differences char-
acteristic (Fiske, 1961; Larsen, 1989; Murray, 1938), it is proposed
that parameters beyond the mean are also meaningful aspects of
personality. That is, it is useful for personality to be conceived of
as density distributions as wholes rather than as only one aspect of
the distributions. To evaluate these claims empirically, three
experience-sampling studies are presented in which many individ-
I thank Anne Fleeson, Jason Fors, Alexandra Freund, Batja Mesquita,
Benjamin Peterson, Daniel Green, Elizabeth Laney, and Adriane Malanos
for their help with this line of work. I also thank the Max Planck Institute
for Human Development, Center for Lifespan Development (Director, Paul
B.
Baltes) for support during the writing of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to William
Fleeson, Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University, Winston-
Salem, North Carolina 27109. Electronic mail may be sent to fleesoww®
wfu.edu.
uals described their current behavior several times per day for 2-3
weeks.
Directly assessing individuals' everyday trait-relevant behavior
over time is intended as important for at least three reasons. Most
important, it addresses a basic question about the nature of per-
sonality: How is trait content manifest in everyday behavior, and
do individuals differ in such manifestation? If personality psychol-
ogy is going to say something about behavior with its constructs,
we must know how that behavior is patterned and where individual
differences occur in those patterns (Barrett & Pietromonaco, 1997;
Borkenau & Liebler, 1995; Borkenau &
Ostendorf,
1998; Botwin,
1989;
Buss & Craik, 1983; Diener & Larsen, 1984; Emmons,
Diener, & Larsen, 1986; Larsen, 1989; Revelle, 1995; Schwartz,
Neale, Marco, Shiffman, & Stone, 1999). A second reason this is
important is that considerable debate in personality psychology
depends on the actual nature of behavioral distributions (e.g.,
Block, 1995; Cervone, 1991; Pervin, 1994). Specifically, the use-
fulness of structural or noncontingent approaches to explaining
behavior depends on the stability of aggregated means, whereas
the usefulness of process or contingent approaches to explaining
behavior depends on the amount of within-person variability to be
explained. With both Epstein (1994) and Mischel and Shoda
(1998) calling for compromise and integration between the struc-
tural and the process approaches to personality, it appears the field
is prepared for the end of this debate. This article proposes one
way to integrate the two factious approaches to personality by
demonstrating that trait concepts are inclusive of both impressive
levels of within-person stability and impressive levels of within-
person variability.
The third reason for assessing everyday trait-relevant behavior
is that it may reveal additional aspects of everyday behavior over
time as relevant to personality. For example, it has long been
theorized that the amount of variability itself is a stable, individual-
differences characteristic (Fiske, 1961; Larsen, 1989; Murray,
1938),
but it has not been investigated empirically for everyday
behavior. The present article operationalizes such concepts as
1011
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.