Individual Differences in Situational Contingencies as Personality Variables: A Multi-Methodological Investigation in Social Situations

• Applicant: Dr. Niclas Kuper
• Subject Area: Personality Psychology, Clinical and Medical Psychology, Methodology
• Term: since 2024
• Project identifier: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) - Project number 543976577

People differ in their reaction to situations and individual differences in “situational contingencies” constitute a central phenomenon for dynamic approaches to personality. Contingencies can be defined as within-person associations between situation characteristics and psychological states. However, previous work on contingencies has almost exclusively used mono-method data, often self-report in experience sampling (ESM). In this project, central open questions concerning the conceptualization of contingencies and the validity of contingencies across methods will be addressed. First, a conceptual article will integrate different literatures on contingencies, examine key conceptual issues, and delineate a future research agenda. To include diverse perspectives, I will conduct two expert workshops. Second, a multi-methodological data collection on contingencies will be conducted. Given the personality-relevance of interpersonal behavior, I will focus on contingencies between five social situation characteristics (status opportunity, interpersonal competition, personal exchange, affection demands, evaluative stressors) and three interpersonal behaviors (agency, communion, nervousness). I plan to assess individual differences in these contingencies with the same participants (18-35 years; targeted N = 525) across three methods: (1) ESM in everyday life, (2) standardized situation stimuli (first-person perspective videos of everyday life situations), and (3) behavioral observation in the laboratory. During ESM (18 days), participants will self-report on the situation characteristics and their behavior during their last social interaction (on average >50 social ESM reports per participant). For the standardized stimuli, 40 immersive videos will be presented to participants, and they will indicate how they would behave in each situation. During the behavioral observation, participants will encounter 20 standardized laboratory situations (video-recorded) in which they interact with trained role-players. The three methods to assess contingencies have different advantages (e.g., ESM: ecological validity; standardized stimuli and behavioral observation: consensual instead of subjective situation characteristics; behavioral observation: consensual behavior ratings instead of self-report). In the second article, I will analyze the data to answer two central research questions (RQs): What is the convergent and discriminant validity of contingencies across methods (RQ1) and how are contingencies and average tendencies (classical trait ratings and average behavior) linked across methods (RQ2)? In the third article, I will explore relations between contingencies and 16 important nomological correlates that have already been associated with classical trait ratings (e.g., well-being, mental health; RQ3). Overall, the project will provide a fuller understanding of situational contingencies as potential personality variables.

• DFG Programme: Research Grants