Understanding the P×S Aspect of Within-Person Variation: A Variance Partitioning Approach
- PMID: 26858661
- PMCID: PMC4726800
- DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02004
Understanding the P×S Aspect of Within-Person Variation: A Variance Partitioning Approach
Abstract
This article reviews a variance partitioning approach to within-person variation based on Generalizability Theory and the Social Relations Model. The approach conceptualizes an important part of within-person variation as Person × Situation (P×S) interactions: differences among persons in their profiles of responses across the same situations. The approach provided the first quantitative method for capturing within-person variation and demonstrated very large P×S effects for a wide range of constructs. These include anxiety, five-factor personality traits, perceived social support, leadership, and task performance. Although P×S effects are commonly very large, conceptual, and analytic obstacles have thwarted consistent progress. For example, how does one develop a psychological, versus purely statistical, understanding of P×S effects? How does one forecast future behavior when the criterion is a P×S effect? How can understanding P×S effects contribute to psychological theory? This review describes potential solutions to these and other problems developed in the course of conducting research on the P×S aspect of social support. Additional problems that need resolution are identified.
Keywords: G theory; Person × Situation; P×S; RRT; SRM; within-person variation.
Figures



Similar articles
-
The relational regulation of within-person variation in personality expression.J Pers. 2022 Apr;90(2):152-166. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12659. Epub 2021 Jul 28. J Pers. 2022. PMID: 34242399
-
Diurnal intraocular pressure variation in pseudoexfoliation syndrome.Eur J Ophthalmol. 2004 Nov - Dec 2004;14(6):495-500. doi: 10.5301/EJO.2008.5057. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2004. PMID: 28221657
-
Analyzing person, situation and person × situation interaction effects: Latent state-trait models for the combination of random and fixed situations.Psychol Methods. 2015 Jun;20(2):165-92. doi: 10.1037/met0000026. Epub 2014 Dec 22. Psychol Methods. 2015. PMID: 25528499 Review.
-
Cooperation, Trust, and Antagonism: How Public Goods Are Promoted.Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2013 Dec;14(3):119-65. doi: 10.1177/1529100612474436. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2013. PMID: 26171620
-
[Trend in person-situation controversy about personality research].Shinrigaku Kenkyu. 1993 Oct;64(4):296-312. doi: 10.4992/jjpsy.64.296. Shinrigaku Kenkyu. 1993. PMID: 8301895 Review. Japanese.
Cited by
-
How Consistent Are Challenge and Threat Evaluations? A Generalizability Analysis.Front Psychol. 2019 Aug 2;10:1778. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01778. eCollection 2019. Front Psychol. 2019. PMID: 31428027 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Ackerman R. A., Kashy D. A., Corretti C. A. (2015). A tutorial on analyzing data from speed-dating studies with heterosexual dyads. Pers. Relationsh. 22 92–110. 10.1111/pere.12065 - DOI
-
- Back M. D., Kenny D. A. (2010). The Social Relations Model: how to understand dyadic processes. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 4 855–870. 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00303.x - DOI
-
- Barrera M., Jr (1986). Distinctions between social support concepts, measures and models. Am. J. Community Psychol. 14 413–445. 10.1007/BF00922627 - DOI
Publication types
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources