Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-03T17:13:24.153Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Situational Strength as a Means of Conceptualizing Context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Rustin D. Meyer  and
Reeshad S. Dalal
Rustin D. Meyer*
Affiliation:
Purdue University
Reeshad S. Dalal
Affiliation:
George Mason University
*
E-mail: meyer@psych.purdue.edu, Address: Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, 703 3rd Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Kanfer (2009) argues that “context” is an important consideration in the study of motivated behavior, but our knowledge of contextual constructs is immature and in need of considerable development. We agree and build on her position by proposing that situational strength (Hough & Oswald, 2008; Mischel, 1977) has the potential to help conceptualize what Johns (2006) calls “discrete context” (i.e., the particular task, social, and physical variables that influence motivation, attitudes, and behavior). The present article briefly describes situational strength, discusses its operationalization and measurement, explores its implications for practice, and describes two research questions that fall within Pasteur’s Quadrant (Stokes, 1997).

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 99 - 102
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2009 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University

References

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 111–118.10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.111Google Scholar
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousness and performance of sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 715–722.10.1037/0021-9010.78.5.715Google Scholar
Beaty, J. C., Cleveland, J. N., & Murphy, K. R. (2001). The relation between personality and contextual performance in “strong” versus “weak” situations. Human Performance, 14, 125–148.10.1207/S15327043HUP1402_01Google Scholar
Fleeson, W. (2007). Situation-based contingencies underlying trait-content manifestation in behavior. Journal of Personality, 75, 825–862.10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00458.xGoogle Scholar
Hough, L. M., & Oswald, F. O. (2008). Personality testing and I–O psychology: Asking questions, offering answers, discussing unknowns, and providing direction. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 272–290.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00048.xGoogle Scholar
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386–408.10.5465/amr.2006.20208687Google Scholar
Kanfer, R. (2009). Work motivation: Identifying use-inspired research directions. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 77–93.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.01112.xGoogle Scholar
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (2000). Individual differences in work motivation: Further explorations of a trait framework. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 470–482.10.1111/1464-0597.00026Google Scholar
Kanfer, R., Chen, G., & Pritchard, R. D. (2008). Work motivation: Forging new perspectives and directions in the post-millennium. In Kanfer, R., Chen, G., & Pritchard, R. D. (Eds.), Work motivation: Past, present, and future (pp. 601–632). New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203809501Google Scholar
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705–717.10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705Google Scholar
Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., & Bonaccio, S. (under review). A meta-analytic investigation into situational strength as a moderator of the conscientiousness-performance relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior.Google Scholar
Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In Magnusson, D. & Endler, N. S. (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333–352). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. R., & Dzieweczynski, J. L. (2005). Why don’t measures of broad dimensions of personality perform better as predictors of job performance? Human Performance, 18, 343–357.10.1207/s15327043hup1804_2Google Scholar
Snyder, M., & Ickes, W. (1985). Personality and social behavior. In Lindzey, G. & Aronson, E. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., pp. 883–948). New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Weiss, H. M., & Adler, S. (1984). Personality and organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 1–50.Google Scholar