Where Does Personality Have Its Influence? A Supermatrix of Consistency Concepts

Abstract

An understanding of the nature of personality depends on clear conceptions of consistency. Researchers have applied the term consistency in ambiguous and inconsistent ways over the last half century, which has led to a great deal of confusion and debate over the existence of personality. This article seeks to reframe and extend conceptions of consistency and thus proposes three important ways consistency concepts differ from each other. The first way consistency concepts differ from each other is in the competing determinant of behavior that the consistency is across: time, situation content, or behavior content. The second way consistency concepts differ from each other is in the definition of behavior enactment: single enactment, aggregate enactment, contingent enactment, or patterned enactment. When these two dimensions are crossed with a third dimension-definition of similarity (absolute, relative-position, or ipsative)-they create a supermatrix of 36 consistency concepts. Empirical support for each of these 36 consistency concepts, or its failure, has uniquely different implications for the fundamental nature of personality. This supermatrix can serve as a guide for future research aimed at discovering the nature of personality.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 172 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.