Wrong and right questions about persons and situations

In science, deciding which questions to ask is all important.Asking the wrong questions leads to wheel-spinning and wastedtime.Imagineifchemistshadaskedwhetherthepropertiesofcrys-talline substances(such as table salt, iodine, or sand) or the proper-tiesofsolvents(suchaswater,carbontetrachloride,orhydroﬂuoricacid)contributemoretodissolvingbehavior.Thequestioniswrongbecause the disposition toward dissolving depends equally on thestructuresofboththesubstanceandthesolvent.Fortunately,chem-istsknewtoasktherightquestion,‘‘Whatisitaboutthestructureofsubstancesandliquidssuchthatinsomecasesdissolvingoccurs,andin other cases, it does not?”Unfortunately, many psychologists who have studied personsand situations have been less adept than chemists when it comesto asking questions. In fact, the history of the person–situationdebate has revolved largely around the wrong question: ‘‘Do thecharacteristics of persons or the properties of situations contributemore toward human behavior?” The question is wrong forprecisely the same reason it would be wrong to ask whether thecharacteristics of solutes or solvents contribute more toward dis-solving (Johnson, 1997; Johnson, 1999a). Space limitationsprohibit a discussion of why psychologists have stubbornlypersistedinaskingthewrongquestion.Sufﬁceittosaythatideolog-ical motivations are probably involved (Funder, 2006; Johnson,1999b).The chemistry analogy indicates that we should be asking whatit is about persons and situations that leads to certain patterns ofbehavior. But people—unlike salt—make choices about situations.People, as evolved, living organisms, choose to enter into, manipu-late, and create situations to accomplish goals (Johnson, 2001).The question of volitional striving toward goals was actuallyarticulated by Mischel (1984) himself, ‘‘how persons can overcome‘stimulus control’—the power of situations—and achieve increasingvolitional control over their own behavior even when faced withcompelling situational pressures” (p. 353). How, indeed, can weovercome unsalutary inﬂuences of peer pressure, charismatic butmalevolent leadership, and engaging but misleading advertisingand propaganda?Toanswertheseimportantquestions,wemustrememberalessonfromchemistry:Thepowerofwatertodissolvesaltdependsasmuchon the characteristics of salt as its own characteristics. The power ofpeer pressure, charismatic leadership, and propaganda depend onthe characteristics of people, viz. personality. Personality predicts, forexample, behavior in the Asch perceptual conformity paradigm orthe Milgram obedience-to-authoritysituation.Because the power of situations depends on characteristics ofpersons, one can reframe Mischel’s important question about voli-tional control in terms of a person’s feelings and motivations:‘‘How do persons overcome ‘appetite control’—the power of inter-nal desires—to achieve increasing volitional control over their ownbehavior even when faced with compelling emotional pressures”(Johnson, 2001)?Thus, I would suggest that future research go beyond consider-ation of the interaction of person and situation factors in the regu-lation of behavior to studying the way in which conscious volitionmanages both external pressures (situational demands) and inter-nal pressures (desires and appetites) in the self-regulation ofbehavior.References